BX 

33 5 



BALFOUR'S LETTERS 



ROFES'SOR S T U»A R T 



IB 3 5" 

<&fe*^le ^Jfo. - 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



REV. MOSES STUART, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE, IN THE 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT ANDOVER. 



BY WALTER BALFOUR, 

.> It 

. OF CHARLESTOWN, 




c Prove all things. 5 — Paul, 




BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED BY B. B. MUSSEY, 29, CORNHILL, 

G. W. STACY*. •.PRINTER. 



1833. 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1833. 

By Walter Balfour, 
in the Clerks*s office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 



//a f£ 



Jr 

I 

Of 



INTRODUCTION. 



The following letters, were published in the Univer- 
salist Magazine, in the years 1820, and 1821, and signed 
6 Jin Inquirer after truths They were addressed to Mo- 
ses Stuart, associate Professor of Sacred Literature, 
in the Theological Seminary at Andover. In presenting 
them to the public, now in a small book, and with my 
real name affixed to them, a brief statement of the cir- 
cumstances which gave rise to them, seems to be neces- 
sary. Without this, some might suppose, they were 
written since I became a Universalist,. whereas they 
were expressly written to avoid becoming one. 

Until the year 1819, a serious thought never occupied 
my mind, that the doctrine of endless punishment might 
be false. In the belief of this doctrine I had been edu- 
cated from my childhood. The books I read; the 
preaching I heard ; and all my religious intercourse ; ' 
tended to deepen my early impressions, that it was 
scriptural. Believing it to be so, I had preached it for 
several years both in Scotland and America. In the 
course of my reading, I had perused several books on 
the subject of universal restoration, but they only tend- 
ed to confirm me in the belief, that endless punishment 



iv ^ . INTRODUCTION. 

was true, and that reformation in hell and salvation from 
it, could not be established from the bible. I deemed 
Universalism a great error, sometimes discussed the 
subject with Universalists and always thought I had the 
best of the argument. 

The first thing, which staggered my faith in the doc- 
trine of endless punishment, was reading that paragraph 
of Mr. Stuart's letters to Dr. Channing quoted in my 
first letter. His statements, I was unable to controvert, 
and the texts on which they were founded, seemed to 
support them. This gave rise to the three first letters, 
and as the reader will see, they were written to solicit 
from Mr. Stuart some explanation, and how he reconcil- 
ed his statements with this doctrine. As he had shaken 
my faith in it, I thought I had some claim on him to say 
something to reestablish it. 

The signature I assumed, ' An Inquirer after truth,' 
though in one sense fictitious, was in another real, for 
my letters were written in sincerity, anxious to see 
where the truth lay on this subject. And believing as I 
had done, that Universalists were in a great error, I was 
also desirous, that Mr. Stuart should so answer my let- 
ters, as to convince them of it. It will be easily perceiv- 
ed by the reader, that the three first letters were only 
embraced in my original design. The others, were oc- 
casioned by observing other things in Mr. Stuart's book, 
and my own investigations of some Greek phrases; 
which he had explained. In investigating the scriptural 
sense of these phrases, my doubts were increased, as to 
the truth of the doctrine of endless punishment. This 



INTRODUCTION. 



V 



made me still more anxious, that he should come forward 
with some explanation. 

The last of the three first letters, was published in the 
Magazine for March 4th 1820, to which Mr. Stuart 
made no reply whatever. After waiting until the 4th 
of July for some explanation on the subject, I wrote him 
by mail, urging him to do this. After waiting several 
months, and still ho reply being made, I sent the copy of 
this letter to the editor of the Magizine for publication. 
The remaining letters of the whole series soon followed, 
as their dates show, At last, Mr. Stuart condescended to 
write a brief note, declining all compliance with my ur- 
gent requests for an explanation. This note will be 
given in its proper place. The reader can judge, wheth- 
er his professed reasons, for declining all explanation, 
are satisfactory. In his letter, he blames me for not 
giving my real name, and seeking a private interview 
With him for my own satisfaction. My reasons for de- 
clining this, are given in the letters, and of them the 
reader can also judge. 

When Mr. Stuart declined all explanation, how he 
reconciled his statements with the doctrine of endless 
punishment, I determined to make a pretty thorough 
examination of the subject for my own satisfaction. The 
substance of my investigations have been published in 
my first and second Inquiries, Essays, and other publica- 
tions. Whether my books, have done any good or evil 
to the world, they have Mr. Stuart to thank for them. 
A little timely explanation from him, might have pre- 
vented them from being written. When I wrote those 
1* 



vi 



INTRODUCTION. 



letters, I had as little thought of writing a book in favor 
of universal salvation, as of creating a new world. All 
my prejudices, and habits of thinking, as well as my hon- 
or and interest, were strongly in favor of the doctrine of 
endless punishment. To Mr. Stuart of Andover, I am 
indebted for making me a Universalist, and to him the 
world are indebted for my books. If I have embraced 
an error, and have published it to the world, let all who 
think so, know, that he is the man who led me astray ; 
was urged to give some explanation, but declined it ; 
and that nothing has been said by him or any other per- 
son, to shew me my error. His exegetical essays, do 
not touch the points discussed in the following letters. 

But, perhaps it may be asked, why republish these 
letters? Why not let the subject rest in oblivion? 
We have several reasons to offer. 1. W T e have been 
repeatedly solicited, to republish these letters in pamph- 
let form, for general circulation. The Magazine in 
which they first appeared, was not adapted to this ; it 
was read comparatively by few ; nor was it preserved by 
many for future reading. Besides, all know, tracts and 
pamphlets are widely circulated to put down Universa- 
lism, and why should not Universalists circulate some in 
its defence ? 

2. Many people know, that I am a Universalist, but a 
great many of them do not know, Mr. Stuart was the 
cause of my becoming one. It is nothing more, than a 
duty I owe to myself and to them, to give them correct 
information on this subject. It is certainly proper, they 
should see, that a highly orthodox Professor's statements) 



INTRODUCTION. 



vii 



were the occasion of my giving up the doctrine of end- 
less [punishment. Many of my former orthodox breth- 
ren, and other well meaning people, have condemned me 
for becoming a Universalist, who may moderate the se- 
verity of my condemnation, when they know the real 
facts of the case. I wish to furnish them with these, 
and let them judge accordingly. If they believe I have 
strayed from the truth, let them see who led me astray, 
and the pains I took to avoid straying. Mr. Stuart cer- 
tainly was the person who led me into Universalism, and 
all ought to know, how little he did to prevent it. But 

3. The importance of the texts, and Mr. Stuart's com- 
ments on them, brought forward in these letters, is the 
principal reason with me for publishing them. Until 
his statements and comments, are shown false, Univer- 
salism never can be proved unscriptural. They are 
foundation stones, on which it rests. Mr. Stuart's state- 
ments, comments, and principles of scripture interpreta- 
tion, when universally understood and adopted, must 
make all men Universalists. Strong as my prejudices 
were, they were overcome by them. No Universalist 
wishes his statements altered to suit him. Is it not then 
proper, these texts with Mr. Stuart's comments, should 
be generally diffused in the community ? Let all see, 
how much he has done to promote Universalism. But 

4. No doubt Mr. Stuart, and many others, still believe 
Universalism a great error. Well, we publish these 
letters, to afford Mr. Stuart a fair opportunity, either to 
retract his statements and comments, or show how he 
reconciles them with the doctrine of endless punishment. 



viii 



INTRODUCTION. 



In his letter, he declares, he had no particular objection, 
or any fears to discuss the subject His principal ob- 
jections are thus stated.' 4 But I must know the name 
and the object of my antagonist, before I enter the lists ; 
and contend on some other ground than that of a news- 
paper.' These objections I now remove out of Mr. Stu- 
art's way for 

1. I now give him my real name affixed to these let- 
ters. About this, there can now be no mistake ; no 
fighting in the dark ; no discussion with a real name on 
the one side, and a fictitious one on the other. 

The object of his antagonist must now also be well 
known. It has always been, a strong desire to see, how 
Mr. Stuart reconciled his statements and comments with 
his belief in the doctrine of endless punishment. Before 
God and all the world, I still declare this to be my sin- 
cere desire. 

3. He wished to 6 contend on some other ground than 
that of a newspaper.' This objection is now also remov- 
ed, by publishing these letters in regular book form. 
His objections being then removed, we may expect to 
see, how he makes his statements and comments agree 
with the endless punishment of a part of mankind. This, 
we hope Mr. Stuart will now do, seeing the doctrine is 
an article in the Andpver creed, and he is set for the de- 
fence of the gospel. This duty he ought to have per- 
formed more than ten years ago, and had it been done 
in a satisfactory manner then, he might have saved me 
from Universalism. 

When Mr. Stuart's exegetical essays were announced, 



INTRODUCTION. IX 

we expected to see in them a powerful vindication of 
the doctrine of endless punishment, and also his state- 
ments and comments reconciled with it. But we were 
entirely disappointed. If Mr. Stuart can reconcile them, 
we shall confess it to be one of the most extraordinary 
things we have ever seen accomplished. Want of time? 
can not now be pled as an excuse, for he finds time to 
write books on far less important subjects. Why not 
then, make one mighty effort, to refute 4 the widely spread 
helief of universal salvation ? Stay its progress now, or 
the United States, the whole world must be filled with 
this doctrine. Let the reader judge, if Mr. Stuart's 
statements discussed in the following pages, are not ad- 
mirably calculated to promote its progress. 

Respecting the following letters it is proper to apprise 
the reader of the following circumstances. 1. When 
published in the Universalist Magazine, no dates were 
affixed to them, the one sent by mail to Mr. Stuart ex- 
cepted. They are now dated according to the time in 
which they appeared in the Magazine. 

2. All the letters, and also Mr. Stuart's note in reply, 
are given in their regular order, without note, alteration, 
or addition. We should have preferred making some 
slight alterations and some considerable additions. But, 
as it might lead some to say^we had altered the letters, 
we give them as they appeared in the Magazine, merely 
correcting the errors of the press, and substituting our 
own proper name for the flctitous one, ' An Inquirer af- 
ter truth? 

3. We have added a number of concluding remarks 



X 



INTRODUCTION. 



founded on some other parts of Mr. Stuart's Letters 
We were not aware until we gave them another perusal, 
that he had said so many things in favor of universal sal- 
vation. The candid reader, we think, will consider the 
concluding remarks a valuable addition to the letters. 

Walter Balfour. 

Charlestown, July 29, 1833. 



LETTER I. 



TO MOSES STUART, 

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN TH£ 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AT. AND OVER, MASS, 



„ January 29, 1820. 

Sir, — I have read your letters to Mr. Chan- 
ning. It is not my object to interfere in the 
controversy between you, but to call your atten- 
tion to one thing in them, which is not likely to 
be noticed by your opponents, but which struck 
my mind with great force while reading them. 
As the paragraph, is not very long on which I 
wish to remark I shall quote it. In your third 
edition, proving that divine honors and worship, 
are ascribed to Christ, you have the following 
quotations from scripture, and observations. 

< Phillip, ii : 10, 11, ' That at the name of Je- 
sus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
and things in earth, and things under the earth; 
and that every tongue should confess that JesuS 
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' 
Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is 
a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New- 



12 



MR. STUART. 



Testament writers, for the Universe ; (ta pan or 
ta panta.) What can be meant by things in 
fieaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee 
to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant ? What 
other worship can heaven render? And if the 
worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual should 
not that of others, who ought to be in temper 
united, with them, be spiritual also ? Rev. v : 8 
■ — 14, c And when he (i. e. Christ, see ver. 6, 
7,) took the book, the four beasts and four and 
twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having 
every one of them harps, and golden vials full of 
odors, which are the prayers of the saints. And 
they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy to 
take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for 
thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by 
thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and 
people, and nation ; and hast made us unto our 
God kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the 
earth. And I beheld and heard the voice of 
many angels round about the throne and the 
beasts and the elders ; and the number of them 
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thou- 
sands of thousands ; saying with a loud voice, 
worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive 
power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and 
honor, and glory, and blessing. And every crea- 
ture which is in heaven, and on the earth, and 
under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and 
all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing, and 
honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that 
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for- 



MR. STUART. 



13 



ever and ever. And the four beasts said Amen. 
And the four and twenty elders fell down and 
worshipped him that liveth forever and ever.' If 
this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ be 
not the object of it here ; I am unable to produce 
a case, where worship can be called spiritual and 
divine. 5 pp. 100—103. 

Such Sir, are the scriptures you have quoted, 
and such are the comments you have given, and 
this is the paragraph, which arrested my atten- 
tion. Upon reading it, the following ideas rush- 
ed into my mind with much violence. — c Things 
in heaven, earth, and under the earth is a peri- 
phrasis for the universe ; this universe worships 
Christ with spiritual and divine worship, and yet 
Mr. Stuart believes that many in this very uni- 
verse, are to be punished in hell for ever. I 
paused, and concluded, that I certainly must have 
read or understood you wrong. I returned, and 
read with careful attention, the whole division of 
your subject, in which the above quotation occurs, 
but found to my surprise I had not. After re- 
peated perusals of it, and after much reflection 
upon it, I am constrained to think, that you either 
are, or ought to be, a Universalist. Sure I am, 
that nothing which I have ever read or heard, in 
so few words, so conclusively establishes the doc- 
trine of universal salvation. Having received 
the impression, from reading your letters, that 
you are a candid, honest man, it has led me thus 
to address you. I cannot suffer myself to think, 
that you secretly believe all will finally be saved, 
2 



14 



LETTERS TO 



and publicly profess to believe a different doc- 
trine. I have concluded, that this passage of 
your letters, must have been inadvertantly writ- 
ten, or you must have some way of getting rid of 
difficulties from the texts you have quoted and 
your comments, of which I candidly confess my 
ignorance. The object of this correspondence^ 
is to state what has occurred to me, and to re- 
quest further information from you on this sub- 
ject. 

I am unable to controvert what you say, that, 
6 things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is 
a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New 
Testament writers, for the universe.' My pres- 
ent degree of knowledge leads me to think, that 
this statement is correct. If it be not, I should 
be glad to see the evidence by which it is dis- 
proved. Neither can I, nor am I disposed to dis- 
pute that the worship spoken of in the texts" 
quoted by yqu, is spiritual worship. So sure you 
are of this, that you say, ' if this be not spiritual 
worship, I am unable to produce a case, where 
worship can be called spiritual and divine. 5 Now, 
my dear Sir, if it be true, that things in heaven, 
earth, and under the earth, is a common peri- 
phrasis for the universe ; and if it also be true,, 
that this worship is spiritual and divine, you cer^ 
tainly have told us, that the universe is to wor- 
ship Christ with spiritual and divine worship. 
The worship is spiritual and divine, and the uni- 
verse are the worshippers. Are we able to avoid 
this ? The mind must be differently constructed 



MR* STUART, 



15 



from mine, that can avoid it. Is it, or can it be 
believed by any one, that any beings in the uni- 
verse, who worship Christ thus, shall be punish- 
ed forever ? I am sure I never had any such 
idea ; and I have always understood, that it was 
on account of persons not worshipping Christ in 
this way, that they were punished. You cer- 
tainly cannot think, that the punishment of the 
wicked forever, is in whole or in part to consist, 
in rendering to Christ spiritual and divine wor- 
ship. If this be punishment what is happiness ? 
If this be hell, what is heaven ? 

It is pretty evident to me from these texts 
which you have quoted, and the explanations you 
have given, that the universe is to worship Christ 
with spiritual and divine worship. Notwithstand- 
ing this, I presume you profess to believe, that 
some, if not many in this universe, are to be for- 
ever miserable. How to reconcile these things^ 
has been a subject of consideration with rne. 
After turning, and looking at these things on all 
sides, I am unable to devise, how you can recon- 
cile them to your own mind, but in one or the 
other of the three following ways. But as each 
of these ways, present to me some difficulties, I 
shall state them, hoping that you will assist me ? 
if possible to remove them. But this must be 
the matter of another communication. 
I am yours, respectfully, 

W. Balfour. 



16 



LETTERS TO 



LETTER II. 



February 19, 1820. 

Sir, — I stated to you in my last communica- 
tion, that there were only three ways which had 
occurred to me, by which you could make the 
everlasting punishment of the wicked, consistent 
with the quotation I made from your letters. As 
each of these ways, present difficulties to my 
mind, I shall proceed to a statement of them, re- 
lying on you for some explantion. 

1st. It occurred to me, that you might believe 
the universe, would render spiritual and divine 
worship to Christ, yet hold the doctrine of the 
eternal punishment of the wicked, by saying, 
that, ( the place of their punishment, was without 
the bounds of the universe.' Admitting this to 
be your view, I admit your statements to be con- 
sistent with your belief in the eternal punishment 
of the wicked. My mind however asks, 6 Is this 
true V Do not you think, that this is a very fanci- 
ful idea ? If you indeed suppose, that the place 
where the wicked are to be punished, is without 
the bounds of the universe, please inform us, in 
whose dominions this place is ? But as I do not 
believe you capable of entertaining such a foolish 
idea, I pass this, and notice, 

2d. That it further occurred to me, you might 



MR. STUART. 17 

attempt to extricate yourself from the difficulties 
in which the paragraph quoted involves you, in 
the following manner. In commenting on the 
passage quoted from Phillipians, you say, Christ 
'is the proper object of universal adoration.' Did 
you mean by this to inform us, that Christ was 
the proper object of universal adoration, but that 
he was not universally adored ? If so, I can easi- 
ly understand, how you hold to the everlasting 
punishment of some, but then I am unable to re- 
concile this with the comments which you have 
given in the paragraph of your letters on which I 
am remarking. Remember Sir, you have told 
us, that, ' things in heaven, earth and under the 
earth, is a common periphrasis for the universe. 3 
Besides, the texts quoted, and your comments 
upon them seem to prove, that this very universe, 
renders spiritual and divine worship to Christ* 
Should this seem the least doubtful from the text 
in Phillipians, all doubt seems to be removed by 
the one you quote from Revelation. Notice its 
language, Sir, ' And every creature which is in 
heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them 
heard I saying, blessing and honor, &c.' Ob- 
serve also your own language in commenting on 
this passage. Do you speak of Christ being on- 
ly, 6 the proper object of universal adoration, but 
not universally adored?' No, you say, 'if this 
be not spiritual worship, I am unable to produce 
a case where worship can be called spiritual and 
divine.' John's language does not, and your 
2* 



18 



LETTERS TO 



comment on his, does not deny, but as the wor- 
ship is divine, the universe are the worshippers. 
On the contrary, have you not said, 6 things in 
heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a peri- 
phrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writ- 
ers for the universe. 5 If this indeed be true, and 
you are confident that the worship rendered by 
this universe is spiritual and divine, where do you 
find your subjects for everlasting punishment, un- 
less among spiritual and divine worshippers of 
Christ ? Are any of them to be the subject of 
this ? As I am confident you do not believe any 
such thing, suffer me to appeal to your candor, if 
there is not a difficulty, which requires your con- 
sideration here, and which I hope you will con- 
descend to resolve. You are a man of too much 
mind, not to perceive the difficulty, and my opin- 
ion of you is, that you are possessed of suffi- 
cient humility to say something by way of ex- 
planation. 

3d. But it occurred to me, that you reconciled 
the paragragh on which I am remarking, with 
your belief of endless punishment, by explaining 
the universal language of Paul and John in the 
texts in a restricted sense. Presuming, that this 
is the mode you take of extricating yourself, my 
desire is to see you do it honorably. The diffi- 
culties which have presented themselves to me 
on this mode of interpretation, will be best pre- 
sented to you by considering the two passages 
which you quote, in order. 

In Phillip, ii : 10, 11, the word every is found 



MR. STUART. 19 

twice : 6 that at the name of Jesus every knee 
should bow, and that every tongue should confess 
that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the 
Father.' Let us then understand the word every 
here, as not meaning all or every individual, but 
only some, and see how it will suit. 6 That at 
the name of Jesus some knees should bow of 
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things 
under the earth ; and that some tongues should 
confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of 
God the Father.' According to this way of un- 
derstanding the word every, only some knees in 
heaven bow to Christ, and some tongues confess 
that he is Lord. But is this true ? Are there 
any such as bow not to, or confess not Christ in 
heaven ? This interpretation of the word every, 
however well it might suit, when applied to per- 
sons on earth, and under the earth, it will not do 
when applied to persons in heaven. Are we then 
in this passage to understand the word, as mean- 
ing all or every individual in heaven^ and only 
some on the earth ? This would be understand- 
ing the word every, in two different senses in the 
course of one sentence. The word every is not 
repeated, but ought to be understood as repeated, 
after every thing spoken of in the passage, thus, 
6 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
of things in heaven, and that at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow, of things on earth, and that 
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of 
things under the earth. 5 And the apostle adds, as 
including all he had just mentioned, c And that eve** 



20 



LETTERS TO 



ry tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
to the glory of God the Father.' But in this way of 
understanding the word every, the passage must 
read thus, c That at the name of Jesus every knee 
should bow, of things in heaven, and that at the 
name of Jesus some knees should bow, of things 
in earth, and that at the name of Jesus some 
knees should bow of things under the earth.' 
But, supposing that all this was very good, how 
are we to dispose of the next part of the sen- 
tence in which the word every occurs? c And 
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ 
is Lord, &c.' In what sense are we to under- 
stand the word every, here ? Does it mean 
some or every individual? If only some, it must 
refer to, and be restricted by, the things on earth, 
and undei- the earth. If it means all or every 
individual, it is only applicable to the things in 
heaven. Now, my dear Sir, in which of these 
senses are we to understand it ? If the word 
every, is not to be understood, as meaning every 
individual uniformly throughout the whole pas- 
sage, be pleased to refer to some other parallel 
texts, in which the word every, must evidently 
be understood in two such different senses in the 
course of one sentence. 

But perhaps you may say, ' have I not ex- 
plained things in heaven, earth, and under the 
earth, to be a common periphrasis of the He- 
brew and New Testament writers for the uni- 
verse/ collectively taken, and not in this way of 
separating its parts. Yes, you have, and to this 



MR. STUART. 



21 



very thing I wish to call your attention. Let us, 
then see how it will do to understand the word 
every i as only meaning some in the universe. It 
is a plain case, and stands thus : You make the 
apostle gravely tell us, 1 some in the universe 
shall bow the knee to Jesus, and some in the 
universe shall confess that he is Lord to the glory 
of God the Father.' Do you think, that this 
was all the apostle meant to express in the pas- 
sage ? Is this then all the Saviour's reward for 
his humiliation, sufferings and death, recorded in 
the preceding verses ? Is this indeed all, for 
which God hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name above every name, that some knees 
should bow to him in the universe, and some 
tongues confess that he is Lord. If we thus 
modify, and explain away the word every, it is 
all the apostle did express, and this is all the re- 
ward of Jesus' work. It will not mend the mat- 
ter much, if instead of the word some, we should 
substitute the word many. The difficulty still 
presses, where it most needs to be relieved. Let 
us see if it does not. ' That at the name of Je- 
sus, many knees should bow of things in heaven, 5 
&c. You may easily perceive, that it still makes 
the apostle say, that there are in heaven some 
knees which do not bow to Christ, and some 
tongues that do not confess that he is Lord to the 
glory of God the Father. Understanding it, of 
the universe collectively, it makes the apostle 
say, that, c many knees shall bow to Christ, and 
many tongues in the universe shall confess that 



22 



LETTERS TO 



he is Lord to the glory of God the Father ;' but 
I doubt if this is the full amount of the apostle's 
meaning. If you think it is, I will thank you to 
make this clearly appear. The things which 
lead me to doubt, I shall briefly state that you 
may accommodate your reply accordingly. 

The word every, appears to me to apply equal- 
ly to every thing mentioned in the passage. It 
seems to me to be an arbitrary mode of interpre- 
tation, to make it mean every individual in heav- 
en, and only some or many on earth and under 
the earth. Besides, I would submit it to your 
superior judgment, whether the apostle does not 
in the conclusion of the passage, encourage us to 
take the most extensive view of what he says in 
the beginning of it. After saying, c That at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
in heaven, and things on earth, and things under 
the earth,' instead of qualifying these general or 
universal expressions, he adds, ' And that every 
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
to the glory of God the Father.' But further, 
what bears weight in my mind most, is, the con- 
nexion in which the passage stands, and the de- 
sign of the apostle in introducing it. This is so 
obvious that I need not point it out. I would 
only say, it seems most natural to me, that the 
apostle in shewing the exalted condition of the 
Saviour, instead of using language which needed 
to be qualified, would use language which ought 
to be understood in its most unlimited sense. I 
may add., and which has some weight with me, 



MR. STUART. 



23 



that in the verse preceding the passage under 
consideration, the apostle uses the word every ? 
which I think cannot be doubted, must be under- 
stood in its most extensive sense. It runs thus,, 
< Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him ? 
and given him a name which is above every 
name. 5 Must we change the word every into some 
or many immediately, for the apostle adds with 
the very next breath, 6 That at the name of Jesus 
every knee should bow/ &c. Must not the every 
knee that shall bow to him, and the every tongue 
that shall confess that he is Lord, be as exten- 
sively understood as the every name he is above ? 

As I have not the talent of saying much in few 
words, I must reserve the remainder of my re- 
marks for one more communication. 
Yoursj respectfully, 

W. Balfour^ 



LETTER III. 



March 4, 1820, 
Sir, — The second text in the paragraph quot- 
ed from your letters to Mr. Channing, and on 
which I wish to make my remarks, is Rev. v : 
8 — 14. To this text and your comments on it 



24 



LETTERS TO 



I shall now turn your attention. Having quoted 
at length the above passage in my first letter, I 
shall here only transcribe verse 13th: c And eve- 
ry creature which is in heaven, and on the earth ? 
and under the earth, and such as are in the sea ? 
and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessings 
and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb 
forever and ever.' Let it not be forgotten, Sir, that 
you have told us in the paragraph quoted from 
your letters in my first communication, that c things 
i. e. beings in heaven, earth, and under the earth, 
is a common periphrasis for the universe. 5 It 
cannot come within the range of fair debate, that 
the same periphrasis is expressed in this verse as 
in Phillipians ii: 10, the passage on which you 
give us this comment. If there be any difference 
it is, that in this verse the periphrasis is express- 
ed more fully. Nor is any room left for us to de- 
bate whether the worship mentioned in this pas- 
sage be spiritual and divine. You express your- 
self clearly and decidedly about this. You say, 
< If this be not spiritual worship, and if Christ be 
not the object of it here, I am unable to produce 
a case, where worship can be called spiritual and 
divine.' The point then to be examined is, how 
are we to understand the words every and all 
which occur in this passage. Understanding 
these words in a universal sense, you prove, that 
every being in the universe shall worship Christ 
with spiritual and divine worship. What could 
a Universalist wish you to prove more ? But as 



MR. STUART. 



25 



you profess your belief in the eternal punishment 
of many, you must modify or explain the words 
every and all to mean only some. Let us exam- 
ine this matter and see how these words ought to 
be understood. 

I think it will be frankly conceded, that if any 
difficulties pressed in limiting the word every in 
the former passage, the same difficulties press in 
limiting the words every and all, here. Let us 
see how limiting these words to some, would suit 
in this passage. 6 And some creatures which are 
in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and some that are in 
them heard I saying, &c. ? Are we then to un- 
derstand that some only in heaven are to worship 
Jesus ? But, I presume here, as in the former 
passage, you would give the word every its most 
extensive sense as it respects creatures in heaven, 
but its limited sense as it respects those on earth 
and under the earth. Having remarked on this 
arbitrary mode of interpretation already, I pass 
this over. It ought not to escape observation, 
that there seems to be something said in this 
text, which forbids this mode of interpreting the 
words every and all. It is this. After John 
says, ' And every creature which is in heaven, 
and on earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea,' observe, Sir, he adds, c And all 
that are in them? John does not say, 'and all 
that are in if/ referring to heaven ; no, but he 
says, 6 and all that are in them/ referring to all the 
places he had mentioned, heaven, earth, under 



26 



LETTERS TO 



the earth, and in the sea. Does this look like 
limiting the word every ? Or understanding both 
in a limited and universal sense the word every 
in the very same sentence ? This phrase, c and 
all that are in them/ instead of modifying the 
word every, seems to express with the more cer- 
tainty the universal sense in which it ought to be 
understood. John, instead of qualifying what he 
had just said, rather adds something to strengthen 
and confirm it. 

But understanding the words every and all, as 
only meaning some, let us see what follows ? It 
makes John inform us twice in the compass of 
one sentence that some beings in the universe 
worship Christ. Does John then use all this 
glowing language, for no other purpose but to tell 
us twice, that some persons in the universe are to 
worship him ? After specifying all parts of the 
universe, after telling us every creature in them, 
yea after adding, ' and all that are in them/ are 
we only to understand, that some in heaven, earth, 
and under the earth, and in the sea, shall render 
to him spiritual and divine worship ? It may be 
so, but your candor will certainly allow, that 
John's language seems to convey somewhat of a 
different idea. In your comments on this pas- 
sage, you say nothing to shew, that the words 
every and all, ought to be restricted to some in the 
universe. Your object in quoting it did not lead 
you to say any thing about this. You quoted it 
to prove that spiritual and divine worship was 
rendered to Christ. But can we learn from the 



Mil. STUART. 



27 



text with more certainty, that Christ is wor- 
shipped at all, than we can from your comments, 
that the universe are the worshippers ? Is it more 
certain from the text and your comment, that the 
worship is spiritual and divine, than that every 
creature in heaven, pn earth, under the earth, 
and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
them perform it ? May I not then return you 
your own comment on this passage, with the fol- 
lowing addition to it : ' If this be not spiritual 
worship and if Christ be not the object of it here ; 
and also every creature which is in heaven, and 
on the earth, and under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, and all that are in them perform 
it, I am unable to produce a case where worship 
can be called spiritual and divine, and where the 
universe are said to be the wor shippers. 5 The 
words marked, you will easily perceive contain 
rny addition. 1 leave you to judge, if it be not 
a very necessary addition to your comment, and 
is equally supported by the passage. By what 
process of reasoning, and by what laws of inter- 
pretation can it be made fairly out from this pas- 
sage, that every creature in heaven worships 
Christ, which is only one part of the universe, 
and that on earth, under the earth, and in the 
sea, the other three parts of the same universe ; 
only some worship him. You are bound to ex- 
plain why you limit the words every and all ap- 
plied to three parts of this universe, and give 
them in the very same passage an unlimited sig- 
nification when applied to one part of it. 



98 



LETTERS TO 



I am aware, that it may be said by you and 
others— c Are there not many passages of scrip- 
ture, which speak of everlasting punishment to 
the wicked, and what are these two, which seem 
to speak of universal salvation when laid in, the 
balance with them ?' I frankly admit this, but 
must say, there must be some way in which these 
opposite texts can be fairly reconciled. About 
nothing am I more certain than this, that one 
writer of scripture never contradicts another, or 
himself, when we truly understand them. In 
your letters to Mr. Channing, you have told us, 
that we are not to adopt rules of interpretation 
for the purpose of saving the consistency of the 
inspired writers ; that if by the fair rules of exe- 
gesis apparent contradictions cannot be reconcil- 
ed, the credit of the writer must go down. Suf- 
fer me also to remind you, that you have also as- 
serted in your letters that the truth of any doc- 
trine, does not depend on the number of passages 
in which it is taught. That a law once promul- 
ged, is not rendered more true by its being many 
times repeated. Admitting all this, and I do not 
see how it can be controverted, let us simply ap- 
ply it to the case before us. If universal salva- 
tion be taught in the two passages on which I 
have been remarking, it is as true as if it had 
been taught in a thousand. If there be indeed 
a palpable contradiction between these, and oth- 
er texts, which speak of everlasting punishment 
to the wicked, there is no way left but to give up 
the credit of one or other of the writers. Per- 



MR. STUART* 



29 



suaded as 1 am, that this contradiction has its 
origin/not in the inspired writers, but in my ig- 
norance of the scriptures, I use all means to be 
better informed of their contents. On this ac- 
count I have taken the liberty to address you for 
information, how you reconcile the paragraph 
quoted from your letters, with your belief in the 
endless punishment of any being in the universe 
of God. Certain I am, that you are in the pos- 
session of knowledge I have not, consistently to 
reconcile these two things — c That the universe 
shall worship Christ with spiritual and divine wor- 
ship, yet many of the beings in this universe be 
eternally miserable/ If you are in possession of 
such information, be kind enough to communi- 
cate it, and be assured, that it will meet with pro- 
found attention from 

Yours, respectfully, 

W. Balfour. 

[It will be perceived by the reader from what 
follows, that I waited four months, expecting Mr. 
Stuart to make some reply to the preceding let- 
ters. Doubting whether the editor of the Maga- 
zine had sent Mr. Stuart the numbers in which 
they appeared, and after ascertaining that he had 
sent them ; on the fourth of July 1820, I wrote 
him a letter by mail. No notice being taken of 
it, and after waiting to December 28th, I sent the 
following note to the editor of the Magazine, in- 
closing a copy of this letter for publication. Both 
these now follow, and will sufficiently account toy 



30 



LETTERS TO 



the time which elapsed between the three first 
letters and those which followed.] 



LETTER IV. 



December 28, 1820. 

To the Editor of the Universalist Magazine, 

Rev. Sir,— Sometime ago I requested the informa- 
tion, if you had sent the Nos. of the Magazine in which 
my letters to Professor Stuart appeared. You were 
kind enough to inform me that they had been sent him. 
After receiving this information I transmitted by mail 
the following letter to him, of which I now send you the 
copy for publication. 

July 4, 1820. 

Rev. Moses Stuart, 

Sir, — Sometime ago I addressed several let- 
ters to you through the medium of the c Univer- 
salist Magazine. 5 I requested the Nos. to be 
sent you in which these letters appeared. . No 
reply being made I began to doubt whether my 
request had been complied with. To satisfy my- 
self I made the inquiry, and in the Magazine of 
July 1st, the Editor informs me that the Nos. in 
which the above letters appeared were certainly 
sent you. I may therefore conclude that you 



MR. STUART. 



31 



have seen these letters, though you have not 
thought fit to say any thing to relieve my mind 
from the difficulties which your book to Mr. 
Channing occasioned. 

It is probable, upon reading my letters, that you 
concluded they were written by a Universalist, 
and were intended to draw you into controversy 
with them. I assure you that this was not the 
case. I never knew what it was to be shaken in 
my faith on this subject until I read your book. 
The paragraph on which I took the liberty to re- 
mark, struck me with all the force I mentioned. 
My letters were written in the uprightness and 
integrity of my heart, and with an unfeigned de- 
sire that you would, if possible, relieve my mind 
from the perplexity which you had occasioned. 
It is true that my letters have the shape in some 
places, of one not writing to have doubts remov- 
ed, but rather of one writing to defend sentiments 
most surely believed. This was done with the 
express design, that your reply might be shaped 
not merely to suit me but to convince the Uni- 
versalists. If they be in an error, some means 
ought to be used to convince them of it, and no 
man seems more capable of doing it than your- 
self, and doing it in the spirit of meekness. 

My design in the present communication, is to 
beg it as a favor, that you would say something to 
relieve the difficulties of my mind which I stated 
in my letters. As your book has been the means 
of creating them, I wish from my heart that you 
may be the means of removing them. But as 



32 



LETTERS TO 



the paragraph on which I remarked confirms the 
faith of Universalists, if you deem them to be 
in error, the interest of truth demands from you 
some explanation. For my sake, for their sake, 
and above all, for the sake of the truth, I hope 
you will condescend to do this. I tremble to 
embrace «rror of any kind. If my heart does 
not greatly deceive me, I sincerely desire to 
know and obey whatever God has revealed in the 
scriptures. Had I been the means of shaking 
your faith on any subject as you have done mine, 
I would render you every assistance in my pow- 
er. This assistance I earnestly request of you. 
I am fully aware that from your professional and 
other duties you cannot spare time to write large- 
ly on this subject. I make no such demand. 
All I wish you to do is, in a brief way to afford 
me a clue, whereby I may be led out of the diffi- 
culties which I have stated in my letters. I sim- 
ply wish you to state, by what fair rule of inter*- 
pretation I can understand the scriptures and your 
.comments on them differently 3 which occasioned 
my remarks. 

Since I finished my letters to you I have been 
examining the places in which (ta panta) occur 
which you say means the universe. It will be an 
additional favor conferred on me, if you could so ' 
shape your answer as to relieve similar difficulties 
arising from the following texts in which ta panta 
are found : 1 Cor. xv ; 24—29 ; Col. i : 16— 
21; Heb. ii : 6—10 ; Eph, i : 10: Phillip iii: 
21, &c, &c. 



MR. STUART, 



33 



Any reply to my letters which you may be 
pleased to make, I presume will be admitted into 
the Universalist Magazine, the editor of which, 
instead of avoiding rather invites discussion. My 
only reason for not giving my name is, it would 
be foolish to afford people occasion of saying I 
had embraced the doctrine of Universal Salva- 
tion, when I am only using every proper means 
to avoid it. There is no danger of my doing so 
if you can state evidence that the views advanc- 
ed in your letters are consistent with the opposite 
doctrine. If you cannot do this how can we 
avoid being Universalists ? 

I have only to add, that I esteem your talents 
and character, and sincerely hope my esteem will 
be increased by your gratifying my wishes in this 
communication. 

I am yours as formerly, he. 



Such Sir, is a true copy of the letter sent to Mr. Stu- 
art. If he ever sent you any communication relative to 
the above, I know it not. Certainly I have never ob- 
served any thing in your Magazine of this nature, 
though a constant reader of it. I have certainly waited 
a reasonable time for his reply, but as none is given I 
shall now state my reasons for sending you the above 
for publication. 

First of all then, I am not ashamed to say, that I am 
inquiring after truth. Since I have finished my letters 
to Mr. Stuart I have given his letters another reading, 
which has led to a few more letters to him which I shall 
send you for publication. Before doing this I wish it to 
be seen, that I have used every proper means to induce 
Mr. Stuart to some explanation. Should he still decline 



34 



LETTERS TO 



this, I most sincerely request any other person to do this 
for him, and prevent me from error if I am wrong. If 
my former letters and those I intend sending to you, can 
be fairly answered, I shall esteem the man who does this 
my best friend. Be pleased therefore to publish this, 
and send the Nos. of the Magazine in which my letters 
may appear to Mr. Stuart. I pledge myself to send you 
with the last letter what will cover the expense. 
I am Sir, yours respectfully, &c. 

W. Balfour. 



LETTER V. 



February 3, 1821. 

Dear Sir, — It is with great reluctance, that 
I again address you. I fondly hoped, that you 
would have answered my former letters, and re- 
moved my difficulties. This you have not con- 
descended to do. Since I finished these letters 
I have thought considerable on the subject of 
them. I have also given your letters a second 
perusal, but instead of my difficulties being di- 
minished, they have increased. Permit me in as 
brief a way as possible to state these, still hop- 
ing that you or some one else, will condescend 
satisfactorily to remove them. 

In my former letters it was noticed that you 



MR. STUART. 



35 



explained c ta panta, 5 to signify the universe. 
Perusing your letters a second time, I find, that 
you repeatedly assert this. In page 67th, you 
say, ' But what are the all things, the universe 
(ta panta), which the Logos made or created? 
Ta panta then which the Logos created means 
(as common usage and the exigency of the pas- 
sage require) the universe ; the worlds material 
and immaterial.' Also, addressing Mr. Chan- 
ning particularly, page 116, you add — ' Are you 
not bound to tell us how this Logos (word) could 
create the worlds ta panta the universe. 3 In 
some other places, you make similar statements, 
which I forbear quoting. It occurred to me after 
reading these statements, that it might be useful to 
consult the places where the phrase ta panta is used 
by the sacred writers. This I have done, and shall 
now submit for your consideration the result of 
my investigations. 

The first passage then which I quote is Col. 
ii : 15—17. It thus stands ; 6 Who is the image of 
the invisible God, the first-born of every crea- 
ture ; for by him were all things (ta panta the 
universe) created that are in heaven, and that are 
on earth, visible or invisible, whether they be 
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or pow- 
ers ; all things (ta panta the universe) were cre- 
ated by him, and for him. And he is before all 
things (panton) and by him all things (ta panta 
the universe) consist. And he is the head of 
the body, the church ; who is the beginning, the 
first-born from the dead ; that in all things (pa- 



36 



LETTERS TO 



son) he might have the pre-eminence. For it 
pleased the Father that in him should all (pan) 
fullness dwell ; and having made peace through 
the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all 
things (ta panta the universe) unto himself ; by 
him I say, whether they be things on earth or 
things in heaven.' It will easily fee perceived 
by you, that my reason for inserting the Greek, 
is to show, that the apostle uses (ta panta the 
universe) about other things than Christ's being 
its creator. Ta panta which you affirm means 
the universe, occurs no less than four times in this 
passage, and also several times equivalent to ta 
panta. This I am confident you will not dispute. 
May I then be permitted to ask you, Is it more , 
plainly and certainly said by the apostle, that by 
Christ c were all things (ta panta the universe) 
created,' than it is said by him, c that it pleased 
the Father by him to reconcile all things (ta pan- 
ta the universe) unto himself?' I make my ap- 
peal to your candor, if we have not the same 
evidence, that God is to reconcile the universe 
to himself by Jesus Christ, as, that he created it 
by him. The very same phrase (ta panta) is 
used by the apostle about both. So far as I am 
able to judge, I think we have some additional 
evidences in favor of God's reconciling the uni- 
verse to himself. Observe, Sir, what is said. 
The apostle after saying, ' it pleased the Father 
by him to reconcile all things unto himself,' he 
adds, i by him I say, whether they be things on 
earth or things in heaven.' Need I remind you 



MR. STUART. 



37 



that in commenting on Phillip, ii: 10, 11, you in- 
form us that 'things in heaven, earth, and under 
the earth, is a common periphrasis for the uni- 
verse (ta pan or ta panta).' Here then the apos- 
tle uses both. He not only says it pleased the 
Father by Christ to reconcile all things (ta panta) 
the universe unto himself ; but to make it the 
more certain he adds the common periphrasis, 
' by him I say, whether they be things on earth 
or things in heaven.' But this very passage you 
quote in page 72d of your letters, and thus com- 
ment on it. After finding fault with the views 
of some commentators, you say, 'By reconciling 
things in heaven and things on earth seems evi- 
dently to be meant bringing into union, under one 
great head, i. e. Christ ; by a new and special 
bond of intercommunication, both angels and 
men. In like manner the two great parties on 
earth, Jews and Centiles are united together. 
But why Christ should be called 6 the image of 
the invisible God' and the head (prototokos) of 
all creation' because he is merely the instrument 
of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is not ap- 
parent to me.' Such Sir, is your comment, and 
for it I presume you will receive the thanks of 
every Universalist. Verily they may say, * Sure- 
ly Mr. Stuart is not far from the kingdom of 
God.' If then your explanation of ta panta be 
just, if your comment be correct, yea, if the 
apostle's words be not greatly misunderstood, all 
go to prove, that God is to reconcile the universe 
to himself by Jesus Christ ; or according to you, 



38 



LETTERS TO 



angels and men, Jews and Gentiles, are to be 
brought into union under one head, Christ, by a 
new and special bond of intercommunication. 

Whilst engaged in examining the texts in which 
the phrase ta panta is found, I accidentally had 
my attention turned to the following passage in 
Dr. Campbell's dissertations. He says, Dissert. 
6. part 2, sec. 6 : 6 In further evidence of this 
doctrine, the inhabitants of hades are, from their 
subterranean abode, denominated in the New 
Testament, Phillip, ii: 10, Jcatahthonioi, a word 
of the same import with the phrase hupoJcato tes 
gesy under the earth in the apocalypse chap, v : 
13, and which, with the epouranioi and epigeioi, 
celestial and terrestrial beings, include the whole 
rational creation. 5 The two texts here referred 
to by the Dr. were those to which I called your 
attention in my former letters. Not then having 
seen this in his dissertations, permit me here to 
notice some things in the above quotation, which 
bear on the subject before us. Be pleased then, 
to notice, that Jcatahthonioi in Phillip, ii ; 10, and 
the phrase hupokato tes ges in Rev. v : 13, are 
of the same or similar import. It is certain, that 
our translators have translated both by the same 
phrase, under the earth. Notice further, those 
persons or beings 6 under the earth,' together with 
epouranioi, and epigeioi, or celestial and terres- 
trial beings, include the whole rational creation ; 
or as it is in our translation, Phillip, ii : 10, \ things 
in heaven and things on earth.' Things in heav- 
en, earth, and under the earth, you say, is a com- 



MR. STUART. 



39 



mon periphrasis for the universe. Should we 
then Sir, be able to find in scripture, that all the 
beings in all these places, or according to Dr. 
Campbell, ' the whole rational creation/ or ac- 
cording to you c the universe,' are reconciled or 
subdued to God, is it not a settled point, that 
universal salvation must be the doctrine of scrip- 
ture ? What more pray remains to be reconciled 
or subdued to God than the universe, the worlds 
material and immaterial, or the whole rational 
creation ? That something in scripture very like 
this is to be found, has been shewn in my former 
letters, from Phillip, ii : 10, 11, and Rev. v : 13. 
Your own concessions and explanations of these 
two texts, and the one under consideration, would 
lead one to think, that you believed universal 
salvation to be a scripture doctrine. Certainly 
nothing that I have ever seen from the pen of a 
Universalist, is half so convincing to me, as what 
you and Dr. Campbell have conceded or said on 
this subject. Let us examine this. 

Dr. Campbell in the above extract asserts that, 
c the inhabitants of hades, are from their subter- 
ranean abode denominated in the New Testament 
Phillip, ii : 10, katahthonioi, a word of the same 
import with the phrase hujioJcato tes ges under 
the earth in the apocalypse chap, v: 13.' By 
hades, you know the Dr. does not mean the place 
called hell, but the invisible world or state of the 
dead. The beings therefore referred to by these 
two Greek expressions, and translated in our ver- 
sion under the earth, include all the dead, good 



40 



LETTERS TO 



or bad in the invisible state, or in hades. But 
the Dr. further asserts, that those beings under 
the earthy or in hades, with the epouranioi and 
epegeioi, celestial and terrestrial beings, include 
the whole rational creation. 5 Keeping these 
statements of the Dr. in view, suffer me to recur 
again to Phillip, ii: 10. It is there said, 6 That 
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of 
things in heaven, (epour anion) and things in 
earth, (epigeion) and things under the earth, 
(Jcatahthonion.) Now, my dear Sir, here are 
three words, which the Dr. says include the whole 
rational creation. Here is Jcatahthonioi, beings 
under the earth, epour anion and epigeion, celes- 
tial and terrestrial beings, which include the whole 
rational creation ; or according to your explana- 
tion, is the common periphrasis for the universe. 
Now, the passage says, < that at the name of Je- 
sus every knee should bow in all these places, or 
every knee in the universe or whole rational cre- 
ation, should bow and every tongue confess that 
Jesus Christ is Lord. I need not remind you, 
that you contend, that this bowing the knee at 
the name of Jesus, is spiritual worship. What 
Sir, can be more clear from these statements of 
your's and Dr. Campbell's than that the whole 
rational creation, are to render spiritual and divine 
worship to Christ. 

The above text, is the only one in the New 
Testament, in which I can find the word Icatah- 
thonioi used. The phrase hupokato tes ges, of 
the same import with it, I find only in the two 



MR, STUART, 



41 



following passages. The first is Rev. v: 13, the 
passage which the Dr. refers to above, and which 
is the text I called your attention to in my former 
letters. The other is verse 3, of the same chap- 
ter, in which this phrase occurs, and which proves 
that what you and the Dr. have asserted, is cor- 
rect. It reads thus, c And no man in heaven, 
( ourano,) nor in earth, (epi tes ges,) was able 
to open the book, neither to look therein.' Is 
not the meaning here simply this. No man in 
the universe,, or in the whole rational creation, 
was able to open the book, the very explanation 
which the Dr. and you have given. Now Sir, 
compare verse 13th in the Greek with this verse, 
or let any one compare them in our English ver- 
sion, and see the similarity of the language used. 
If the meaning in verse 3 be the universe or 
whole rational creation, this must also be the 
meaning of verse 13. 

I have noticed above, that by hades is not 
meant hell, according to the usual acceptation of 
this word, but the invisible state of the dead, in- 
eluding all good or bad. No one can doubt this, 
who reads Dr. Campbell's dissertation referred to 
above. I would therefore simply suggest it for 
consideration, without deciding, whether in the 
following text, we have not another mode of ex- 
pression for the universe or the whole rational 
creation. Thus Rom. xiv : 9, it is said, c For to 
this end Christ both died, and rose and revived, 
that he might be Lord both of the dead and liv- 
ing.' By the dead all in hades maybe included* 
4# 



\ 



42 LETTERS TO 

and by the living all the rest of the rational cre- 
ation. Christ is said to be Lord both of the 
dead and living, and corresponds with the same, 
as ' Lord of all.' Acts x : 36. 

But let us return from this digression, if it may- 
be called one, to the passage under considera- 
tion. Should it be said, that in this passage nei- 
ther the word katahthonioi nor the phrase hupo- 
Icato tes ges are used. True, but you cannot 
deny, that ta panta occurs four times, and ac- 
cording to your own explanation it means the 
universe which includes the w r hole. If it there- 
fore hath pleased the Father, by Jesus Christ to 
reconcile (ta panta) the universe to himself, 
surely these words which express only a part of 
this universe must be included. But if neither 
of these expressions are used in this passage, the 
apostle has not only used ta panta the universe, 
but the expressions c things in heaven and things 
in earth? which you aver is a common periphra- 
sis for the universe. 

Looking back on the remarks made, may I not 
ask as you do Mr. Channing, only altering the 
language to suit the subject, — c But what are the 
all things, the universe ta panta which the Fath- 
er by Christ is to reconcile to himself ? Ta pan- 
ta then which the Father reconciles to himself, 
means, [as common usage and the exigency of 
the passage require], the universe; the 6 worlds 
material and immaterial, 5 or as Dr. Campbell 
says, 6 the whole rational creation.' Can you 
prove, that common usage, and the exigency of 



MR. STUART 



43 



this passage, require us to understand ta panta 
the universe, when Christ is said to create it, but 
that it means something very different, when by 
him it is reconciled. I think if common usage 
is resorted to, you will find, that ta panta is oft- 
tener used when the subjection or reconciliation 
of the universe is spoken of, than when he is 
said to be the creator of it. Before I have done, 
you shall see this remark sufficiently established. 
But suffer me to ask, does the exigency of this 
passage require us to understand ta panta differ- 
ently from what I have done ? By what law of 
exegesis must we understand it to mean the uni- 
verse, verse 16th, and not understand it in a sim- 
ilar sense in verse 20th ? Must it mean the uni- 
verse without limitation when God by Christ 
created it, and are we to understand it in a very lim- 
ited sense when God by him reconciles it? But I 
am happy to see, that in your comments on this 
text quoted above, you neither say nor insinuate 
any such thing. May I not then put the ques- 
tion, which you put to Mr. Channing, with a va- 
riation of the language suited to the subject. 
c Are you not bound to tell us how God by Christ 
reconciles the universe to himself, and notwith- 
standing this, profess that all the universe will 
not be saved ? 

Before I dismiss this passage, there are one or 
two remarks more I must be permitted to make. 
The apostle after stating to us in verse 20th 
God's reconciling the universe to himself, adds in 
verse 21st, ' And you that were sometime alien- 



44 



LETTERS TO 



ated and enemies in your minds by wicked works, 
yet now hath he reconciled.' Notice the ex- 
pression Sir, yet now hath he reconciled. The 
apostle by this expression intimates, that the Co- 
lossians to whom he wrote, were at that present 
time a specimen or a beginning of the reconcil- 
iation of the universe, which he had spoken of 
in the preceding verses. This seems to agree 
with what is said of the Jews, Rom. xi : 5, 6 Ev- 
en so then at this present time also there is a 
remnant according to the election of grace,' but 
adds verse 26th, c And so all Israel shall be sav- 
ed ; as it is written, there shall come out of Zion 
the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness 
from Jacob.' Besides, you know that the first 
fruits under the law were not only a specimen 
of, but a pledge of the gathering in of the full 
harvest. Referring to this, James says, chap, 
i: 18, 'Of his own will begat he us with the 
word of truth, that we should be a kind of first 
fruits of his creatures.' 

To conclude this communication I would ob- 
serve, that it is vain for us to pretend, that in the 
above remarks there is no force. I aver, that 
no man capable of reading them and of putting 
two ideas together, can help feeling their force. 
I have freely expressed the force they have on 
my mind, and I call upon you to shew me my 
error if you are able, by reconciling these state- 
ments with the idea of limited salvation. Until 
you, or some one else shall do this, I should sin- 
fully abuse the faculties God has given me, and 



MR. STUART. 



45 



lie with my lips to deny, that, this passage has 
at least the appearance of proving, that it pleas- 
ed the Father by Jesus Christ to reconcile the 
universe, or whole rational creation to himself. 
If I am really mistaken, one thing is certain, Dr, 
Campbell and yourself, have been the instru- 
ments of leading me into it, by your becoming 
hewers of wood and drawers of water to the 
Universalists. It will not be pretended that I 
have misunderstood or misrepresented either of 
you. I have only shown, that the statements 
you have made, fairly involve the doctrine of the 
salvation of the universe, or whole rational crea- 
tion. If you can shew their consistency with 
the contrary doctrine, no man in the universe will 
be more obliged than yours, 

W. Balfour. 



LETTER VI. 



Dear Sir, — The next passage to which I so- 
licit your attention and in which t a pant a is found ; 
is i Cor. xv : 24 — 29 : 6 Then cometh the end, 
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to 
God, even the Father ; when he shall have put 
down all rule and all authority and power. For 



46 



LETTERS TO 



he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under 
his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroy- 
ed is death. For he hath put all things under 
his feet. But when he saith, all things are put 
under him, it is manifest that he is excepted 
which did put all things (ta panta the universe) 
under him. And when all things (ta^ panta the 
universe) shall be subdued unto him, then shall 
the Son also himself be subject unto him, that 
did put all things (ta panta the universe) under 
him, that God may be all in all. 5 This passage 
demands particular attention. I hope I shall be 
excused in being somewhat minute in my exami- 
nation of it. 

Let it then be observed, Sir, that c ta panta,' 
which you say means c the universe,' occurs three 
times. To you it is superfluous to add, that, it 
also occurs several times in a form equivalent to 
ta panta. Let us go over in order the things 
mentioned in this passage* 

It is said, c Then come th the end/ 5 The ques- 
tion naturally occurs here, — The end of what ? 
I presume it is generally allowed to be the end 
of Christ's reign. If the question is asked, — 
His reign over what ? The answer from the pas- 
sage plainly is, his reign over the kingdom which 
he is to deliver up to God, even the Father. 
But let us ask again,— When shall the end come ? 
The passage answers : ' When he shall have de- 
livered up the kingdom to God even the Father. 5 
But let us ask again,— What is to be accomplish- 
ed by Christ before this end comes ? The pas- 



MR. STUART, 



47 



sage answers : The kingdom shall not be deliver- 
ed up, and the end come ? until 6 he shall have put 
down all rule, and all authority and power, for he 
must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his 
feet. 5 And of these enemies the last to be de- 
stroyed ' is death.' But the apostle proceeds,, 
6 for he hath put all things under his feet/ It is 
necessary to notice here what the same apostle 
says, Heb. ii : 8, 9, c But now we see not yet all 
things (ta panta) the universe put under him ; 
but we see Jesus who was made a little fower 
(for a little time lower) than the angels, crowned 
with glory and honor,' &c. Compare Phiffip. ii ; 
9, 10, 11. It is true even in our day, that we 
see not yet all things put under Christ,* that is 7 
actually subdued to him, yet we know tha^ he is 
exalted for this purpose, and the apostle assures 
us, that — 6 he must reign till he hath put all ene- 
mies under his feet.' Ta panta, the universe 
was put under him by the Father to be subdued,, 
and when this is fully accomplished, then shall 
the Son also himself be subject unto him that put 
all things under him, that God may be all in all.' 
But there are some things in the passage which 
demand a distinct and more enlarged considera- 
tion. 

1st. The extent of the subjection to Christ 
mentioned in it. This point appears to be set- 
tled by yourself. You expressly and repeatedly 
inform us, that ta panta which occurs three times, 
means the universe. Now, dear Sir, can words 
more emphatically declare than is done in this 



48 



LETTERS TO 



passage, that the universe shall be subdued to 
Christ ? Could yon have produced such a plain 
and emphatic passage to prove Christ the creator 
of the universe, what would you say of the man 
who would resist such evidence ? Is there a 
single text produced by you so plain as this is, 
that Christ created the universe ? Will you then 
say that ta panta means the whole universe when 
Christ is said to create it, but that it means only 
a part of the universe when he is said to subdue 
it ? If ta panta does not mean a part but the 
whole of the universe w 7 hen Christ is said to be 
its creator, by what fair rule of interpretation can 
you shew, that it does mean only a part of this 
universe when he is said to be its subduer ? If 
once this arbitrary mode of explaining the lang- 
uage of scripture is admitted, what is it we may 
not prove from the bible ? But my dear Sir, I 
impute no such thing to you, I simply request 
you to state how you deliver yourself out of the 
above difficulty. So long as you maintain, that, 
ta panta means the whole universe when Christ 
is said to create it, so long you must expect the 
Universalists to maintain, that it means the whole 
universe when he is said to subdue it. But if I 
am not greatly mistaken, we are not left to decide 
this point by the mere use of the phrase tapanta 
in this passage. The extent of the subjection to 
Christ, of which this passage speaks, is decided 
in it by a way which leaves little room for debate. 
You know, when exceptions are made to a gene- 
ral subject, all not excepted are allowed to be 



MR. STUART. 



49 



included. Observe then, that there is one, and 
only one exception made by the apostle in the 
passage about ta panta the universe, being sub- 
dued to Christ. This is God himself. He says, 
e But when he saith, all things (ta panta the 
universe) are put under him, it is manifest that 
he is excepted which did put all things under 
him.' Can you prove that there are- other ex- 
ceptions? Can you refer us to other texts in 
which some more exceptions are made ? Be 
pleased to say in what other part of the bible 
they are to be found. But as if even this was 
not enongh, the apostle says, that Christ is, to 
c put down all rule and all authority and power/ 
Yea, that c he must reign, till he hath put all 
enemies under his feet and that 6 the last enemy 
that shall be destroyed is death. 5 Besides, to 
shew the ultimate and complete nature of this 
subjection, the apostle says, 6 And when all things 
(ta panta the universe) shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the son also himself be subject 
unto him that put all things under him, that God 
may be all in all.' Will you be kind enough to 
shew, what, after all this is done, yet remains in 
the universe to be subdued? How shall all things 
or the universe be subdued unto Christ, and yet 
a great part of it still remain in rebellion ? And 
how shall God be all in all if this be the truth ? 
How is it, that the last enemy which is to be 
destroyed is death, and yet millions of the human 
race are to remain forever under the power of the 
second death ? Do, my dear Sir, explain how the 



50 



LETTERS TO 



universe is to be subdued and put under Christ's 
feet, and yet by many it is believed, that the great- 
er half of the children of men are to remain in re- 
bellion and misery to the endless ages of eternity? 
I am aware, Sir, that what I have said about the 
extent of this subjection may perhaps be admit- 
ted, yet you may dispute with the Universalists 
about the kind. I shall therefore, 

2d. Attempt a consideration of the nature of 
the subjection mentioned in the passage. The 
important question at issue here is, are we to 
understand this subjection a forced or willing sub- 
jection ? Is it constrained by force or fear, or is 
it the effect of love ? Does it consist in the 
universe being subdued, yet rebels still at heart, 
or does it consist in all being made loving and 
obedient subjects ? I have used some pains to 
examine this point with care and impartiality, and 
shall lay before you the result of my investiga- 
tions. 

1st. Then, I attempted to understand the sub- 
jection mentioned, a constrained subjection, but 
could find nothing in the meaning of the original 
word, or circumstances mentioned, nor in the scope 
of the writer to support this view. If any thing 
of this nature is contained in the passage it has 
escaped my observation. 2d. I next attempted 
to understand the subjection, as partly constrained 
and partly of love, knowing that Christ is at least 
to have some loving and obedient subjects. I 
found this view would not suit any better than the 
former. I could find nothing to justify it, but 



MR. STUART. 



51 



much to condemn it as shall presently appear. 
The subjection I saw, must be understood either 
as universally constrained, or universally of love. 
To support the latter of these views, the follow- 
ing things have occurred to me. 1st. It is the 
subjection of (t a pant a) the universe, and tV.is 
subjection is spoken of throughout the whole pas- 
sage as of the same nature or kind. It is the 
universe which is to be subdued, and no distinc- 
tion is made about different kinds of subjection* 
No hint is given that some shall be subdued by 
force, and others be subdued by love. The uni- 
verse is put under Christ to be subdued, and all 
are spoken of as partakers of the same kind of 
subjection. If the subjection is constrained, it 
must be so to all, and if we understand it of love, 
it must be so to all. That this subjection is a 
willing subjection, or of love, may be inferred, 
2d. From the same original word expressing the 
subjection of the universe to Christ, and Christ's 
subjection to the Father. No man for a moment 
hesitates to admit, when it is said, < then shall the 
Son also be subject unto him that put all things 
under him,' that this subjection is voluntary and 
of love. For what good reason then ought we 
to understand it otherwise, when the very same 
word expresses the subjection of the universe to 
Christ ? Consistency and candor require, that 
we understand the subjection in both either to be 
constrained, or in both voluntary, for the apostle 
considered the same word a correct expression 
for both. But this seems to be confirmed by at- 



52 



LETTERS TO 



tending, 3d. To the meaning and scripture usage 
of the original word. As to its meaning, Park- 
hurst says, it signifies c to set or place under, to 
subject, subdue. — 1 Cor. xv. 27. Ephes. i. 22. 
Phillip, hi. 21. Heb. ii. 5-8. Upotassomai 
passive or middle, with a dative following to be 
subject or in subjection to. The word, says 
Leigh, in Rom. xiii. 1, signifieth an orderly sub- 
jection, and Wetstein on Luke ii. 51, shews that 
the Greek writers sometimes apply it to a volun- 
tary submission.' 

As to scripture usage of the word, after exam- 
ining all the places where it is found, the fact is, 
in few or none of the places where it occurs, can 
it be supposed that a constrained subjection is 
meant. The following are all the places in which 
upotasso and the derivative upotage are found. 
I shall in the briefest manner notice them. The 
word then is used to express the subjection 
of Christ to the Father. — 1 Cor. xv. 28. The 
subjection of (ta panta) the universe to Christ, 
1 Cor. xv. 24—27. Heb. ii. 8. Philip, iii. 21. 
1 Peter hi. 22; to the want of subjection in the 
carnal mind to God's law, Rom. viii. 7. and to 
God's righteousuess, Rom. x. 3. It is used to 
express the subjection of christians in various 
ways. Their subjection to God, James iv. 7; to 
Christ, Eph. v. 24; to his gospel, 2 Cor. ix. 13 ; 
to civil rulers, Rom. xiii. 1-5; Titus iii. 1 ; 1 Pe- 
ter ii. 13; the subjection of wives to .their hus- 
bands, 1 Peter iii. 1-6; Col. iii. 18; Eph. v. 22; 
Titus ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 34; Eph. v. 24 ; 1 Tim. 



MR. STUART. 



53 



ii. 11 ; the subjection of children to their parents, 
Heb. xii. 9 ; 1 Tim. iii. 4 ; Luke ii.51 ; of youth 
to the aged, 1 Peter v. 5 ; of servants to their 
masters, 1 Peter ii. 18; christians are exhorted 
to submit themselves to such as are eminent in 
the church for benevolence and labors, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 16 ; yea all of them are exhorted to be sub- 
ject one to another, Eph. v. 21 ; 1 Peter v. 5. 
The apostle did not give place by subjection for 
an hour to false brethren, Gal. ii. 5. He denies 
that the world to come, or age, was put in subjec- 
tion to angels. Heb. ii. 5; and says that the spirits 
of the prophets were subject to the prophets, 1 
Cor. xiv. 32. Now, my dear Sir, let any one 
turn to all these texts, and upon examination he 
will find, that the usage of this word is not a 
constrained but a willing subjection. The two 
following, and the only remaining texts in which 
this word is found, are all in which I should think 
any one could find any thing like an exception to 
the above statement. In Rom. viii. 20, it is said, 
c the creature w T as made subject to vanity not 
willingly/ As I think you will not deem this 
an exception, I pass it with a slight remark. Let 
any one produce a text like this, saying, 'The 
universe was made subject to Christ, not willingly 
but by reason of him who hath subjected it/ and 
I bow 7 before it with reverence. The only other 
text is Luke x. 17, 20, < even the devils are 
subject unto us through thy name, 5 and c Rejoice 
not that the spirits are subject unto you.' Ad- 
mitting that the subjection of the demons here 



54 



LETTERS TO 



mentioned, was constrained, yet what is this one 
instance in opposition to all the above texts to the 
contrary, in settling the scripture usage of this 
word. By whomsoever this might be urged, it 
could not consistently be done by you, for you 
have said that the worship mentioned in Phillip, 
ii. 9, 10, and Rev. v. 13, is spiritual and divine, 
and as we have seen the universe are the wor- 
shippers. Surely you never meant that this 
spiritual and divine worship which the universe 
is to render to Christ was constrained. 

That this subjection to Christ, is a cordial wil- 
ling' subjection, I think may fairly be inferred 
from your own statements. I refer you to the 
parts of your letters on which I remarked in my 
former letters, and in the preceding letter. I 
now introduce as additional evidence of this, the 
following passage from your letters, which though 
it has been noticed before ought to be more par- 
ticularly brought into view. In your comments 
on Col. i. 10-17, you thus write ; 6 Because in 
verse 20th, Christ is said to reconcile Qcatallaxai) 
all things unto himself/ and these are said to be 
c things in heaven and things on earth ;' and af- 
terwards, he is represented as breaking down the 
wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles ; 
some ingenious commentators have supposed, that 
6 things in heaven and things on earth, 5 mean 
Jews and Gentiles. How very unnatural this 
explanation is no one can help feeling, who reads 
the passage in an unbiassed manner. In what 
tolerable sense, can the Jews and Gentiles be 



MR. STUART. 



55 



called tilings visible and invisible ? Or how shall 
we explain the phrase, ' things in heaven and 
things on earth/ as applied to them ? By 6 rec- 
onciling things in heaven and things on earth/ 
seems evidently to be meant, bringing into union, 
under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a new and 
special bond of intercommunication, both angels 
and men. In like manner, the two great parties 
on earth, Jew T s and Gentiles, are united together. 
But why Christ should be called, c the image of 
the invisible God/ and the i head (prototoicos) 
of all creation/ because he is merely the instru- 
ment of bringing Jews and Gentiles together, is 
not apparent to me.' In addition to the remarks 
made on a part of this passage, quoted in the 
preceding letter, I shall only subjoin a remark or 
two here, shewing, that this paragraph goes to 
prove, that the subjection mentioned in the pas- 
sage under consideration, is a voluntary and cor- 
dial submission. Let it then be observed, what 
I think will not be disputed, that the w T ord recon- 
cile in Col. i. and the word subdue in 1 Cor. xv. 
refer to, and for substance express the same thing 
accomplished by Christ. In the first he is said 
to 6 reconcile (katallaxai) all things (ta panta) 
the universe unto himself.' .In the other to 
c subdue all things (ta panta) the universe 
to himself.' If then according to your own 
statement the universe is reconciled and sub- 
dued, is not the reconciliation voluntary ? Is 
it possible to conceive how 'angels and men, 
Jews and Gentiles, are all brought into union under 



56 



LETTERS TO 



one great head i. e. Christ, by a new and special 
bond of inter-communication/ and yet many 
of them never cordially submit to him ? Are 
multitudes of men in this universe, notwithstand- 
ing their being reconciled and subdued to Christ 
to continue forever rebels ? And, although you 
contend, that the worship which this very uni- 
verse is to pay him is spiritual and divine, are 
they to perform it with rebellious hearts after they 
have been reconciled and subdued? I would 
gladly change my place of tuition for that of 
Andover, if I could learn, that these things are 
either rational or scriptural. 

Any additional remarks, which I have to make 
on the nature of this subjection to Christ, shall 
be introduced in some passages yet to be consid- 
ered. I shall, before dismissing this text, spend 
a few words in attempting 

. 3dly. To ascertain as far as possible the time 
when this subjection to Christ shall be finally 
accomplished. The apostle not only speaks of 
it as certain, but he seems to me to hint in this 
and in some other places at the time of its final 
accomplishment. In Heb. ii. 8, the apostle says, 
c We see not yet all things put under him..' No, 
nor do we in our day see this, but this is no proof 
that it shall never be accomplished. This sub- 
jection to Jesus was going on in the apostles' day. 
It is going on in ours, and will continue to do so 
until the period in the passage called 'the end.' 
In the passage, the apostle seems to me, to inti- 
mate, that before the end, this shall be finally and 



MR. STUART, 



57 



fully accomplished. Instead of any remarks of 
my own, I prefer quoting the following from Mr. 
Pierce. He says, commenting on Heb. ii. 8 ; 
1 It will perhaps, be here objected, that all things 
were put under Jesus at the resurrection, Matt, 
xxviii. Eph. i. 21. Phillip, ii., how then could 
this author say that we see not yet all things put 
under Jesus. The answer to this objection is 
not difficult. At our Saviour's resurrection all 
things were given into his hands, and he w T as in- 
vested with a right to, and dominion over them 
all ; but the actual subduing them, and the bring- 
ing them into subjection under him, was to be a 
work of time, not to be completely finished till 
the conclusion of his reign, and just before his 
delivering up the kingdom to God even the 
Father; as is manifest by comparing other places 
of scripture, where the same thing is spoken of. 
So when God raised him, and set him at his own 
right hand, he said to him, Psalm ex. 1, c Sit 
thou on my right hand until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool.' And therefore he must reign till 
God hath put all things under his feet, 1 Cor, xv. 
25. And when all things shall be subdued unt-e 
him, then shall the son also be subject unto him 
that put all things under him, that God may be 
all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 28, compare Dan. ii. 35, 
44, 45.' 

Submitting the above remarks on this passage 
for your consideration, I am, dear Sir,your's &c. 

W. Balfour. 



58 



LETTERS TO 



LETTER VII. 



March 24, 1821. 
Sir, — The next passage to which I'shall call 
your attention is, Heb. ii, 8. — ' Thou hast put all 
things in subjection under his feet. For in that 
he put all (ta pania the universe) in subjection 
under him, he left nothing that is not put under 
him. But now we see not yet all things (ta 
panta the universe) put under him. 5 You will 
readily perceive, that ta panta, which you ex- 
plain to mean the universe, occurs at least twice 
in this text. On it I submit the following brief 
remarks. 

1st. This passage proves, that your explana- 
tion of ta panta is correct. This is evideut from 
comparing verse 7th with it. The all things, or 
(ta panta) the universe, verse 8th, is thus explain- 
ed in the 7th : c Thou didst set him over the 
works of thy hands. 5 It could be easily shown, 
that by c the works of thy hands,' is meant the 
universe. The 8th Psalm, and page 69th of 
your letters, afford sufficient evidence of this, 
which 1 forbear quoting. 

2d. Observe that the passage expressly affirms, 
that God hath put this ta panta or universe under 
Christ's feet. Not only so, but the apostle de- 
clares, that c he left nothing that is not put under 
him.' The only exception to this subjection is, 



MR. STUART, 



59 



that of God himself mentioned 1 Cor. xv. 27, 
c it is manifest that he is excepted which did put 
all things under him.' If this does not prove the 
universal and complete subjection of the universe 
to Christ, how is it possible ever to use words so 
as fully to express it. Supposing God had left 
you at liberty to choose out words to express the 
universal and complete subjection of the universe 
to Christ, pray w 7 hat language could you have 
selected more definite or appropriate ? In what 
more guarded language could it have been ex- 
pressed ? 

3d. Though the universe is put in subjection to 
Jesus, it is not yet fully and actually subdued., 
for the apostle says, 6 but now w T e see not yet all 
things put under him.' Though the apostle did 
not see this in his day, nor do we see it even in 
our day, yet his language strongly implies the 
certainty of its accomplishment. In other texts 
he has expressly declared the certainty of it, and 
none need doubt the power of God to effect it. 
The universality of this subjection is beyond fair 
debate, the nature or kind of it, is the ground 
alone on which you can contend with Universa- 
lists. To this I paid some attention in my last 
letter, and before I close these communications^ 
will afford additional evidence. I only here re- 
mark, that the subjection mentioned 1 Cor. xv. 
24 — -28, is the same as in the passage before us. 
The subduer is the same person, the subjects to 
be subdued are the same, and the same original 
word, is used to express the subjection in both 



60 



LRTTERS TO 



passages. They must stand or fall together, as 
it respects the subject under discussion. 

4th. Suffer me to ask, how you can avail your- 
self of ta panta as signifying the universe when 
Christ is said to be the Creator of it, and deny 
this liberty to the Universalists, when Christ is 
said to reconcile or subdue it ? By what ration- 
al means do you slide, or rather leap over this 
difficulty? Perhaps it did not occur to you in 
the heat of the controversy with Mr. Channing, 
what use might be made of your explanation of 
ta panta, as meaning the universe, to establish 
universal salvation. I think, you cannot but feel 
the necessity under which your explanation of ta 
panta has laid you, to come forward and own 
yourself a Universalist, or rationally and scriptu- 
rally to state, how you reconcile your explanation 
with your limited views of salvation. Unless this 
is done, I must think your weapon forged for Mr. 
Channing, has wounded yourself. Supposing in 
the passages I have brought to your view, you 
should come forward and tell us, that ta panta 
only means a part of the universe, would not Mr. 
Channing smile to see you thus do away all the 
force of your argument against him. Unless you 
admit that ta panta means the universe when 
Christ is said to subdue or reconcile it, how can 
you look Mr. Channing in the face and maintain, 
that it means this when he is said to create it. 
You know this is the strongest argument in your 
book to prove the divinity of Christ against him; 
but you must relinquish it, or admit universal 



MR. STUART. 



61 



salvation. You are too shrewd a man not to per- 
ceive the force of this statement, and I hope too 
candid and honorable to refuse some explanation, 
I cannot certainly say but you may be able to 
show, how your explanations are consistent with 
limited salvation, but certainly I cannot perceive 
how it can be done. I want information, 

The next passage to which I invite your atten- 
tion, is Eph. i. 10 — 'That in the dispensation of 
the fulness of times he might gather together in 
one all things, (ta panto) the universe in Christ 
both which are in heaven, and which are on 
earth; even in him. 5 Notice again, sir, that the 
all things here as in the former passages, is ta 
panta the universe. The person in whom the 
all things, or universe is to be gathered together, 
is expressly said to be Christ : and by whom the 
all things are to be gathered together in him. we 
learn from verses 3 — 8. of the chapter. • In ref- 
erence to the subject before us there are two 
things which demand particular attention. 

1st. What is to be understood by the gather- 
ing in one all things in Christ ? Let it then be 
noticed, that the apostle not only says, that it is 
ta panta which you say means the universe which 
is to be gathered together in Christ, but he adds, 
c both which are in heaven and which are on 
earth even in him. 5 I must again remind you, 
that ( things in heaven and things on earth 5 you 
say is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and 
Greek writers for the universe. 5 The apostle 
then, by your own explanation, makes this mat- 



62 



LETTERS TO 



ter doubly sure. He first gives us ( ta panta) the 
universe, and then the common periphrasis of it. 
You have then by your own comments placed 
this matter beyond fair debate, that the universe 
in the dispensation of the fulness of times, is to 
be gathered together in one in Christ. 

But let us consider what ought to be under- 
stood by this gathering together. I presume it 
will not be disputed, that this gathering together, 
is for substance the same thing, as is expressed in 
1 Cor. xv. 24-28, by Christ's subduing all things 
to himself. And the same as is expressed in 
Col. i. 20, by his reconciling all things to him- 
self, or to take your own comment on this last 
text, by gathering together all things in Christ, 
' seems evidently to be meant, bringing into union, 
under one great head, i. e. Christ; by a new and 
special bond of intercommunication, both angels 
and men.' The subject, the circumstances, and 
the language in all these texts, are so much the 
same that they need only to be read and your 
comment ought to be admitted. Curiosity led 
me to turn to Parkhurst on the word (anakefala- 
iosasthai) here translated ' gather together. 5 
He thus explains it — c to gather together again 
in one*, to reunite under one head.' Eph. i. 10, 
compare verse 22, and see Wolfius and M' Knight. 
You see then, that Parkhurst and you agree about 
this gathering together in one. The universe, 
according to these statements is to be gathered 
together again in one, or to be reunited under one 
head which is Christ. How this can be denied 
or evaded I am unable to divine. 



MR. STUART. 



63 



I cannot forbear noticing here, that if any fur- 
ther evidence was needed to prove, that the sub- 
jection to Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 24-28, and Heb. ii. 
8, was a voluntary subjection, a conclusive argu- 
ment seems to be furnished in the passage under 
consideration. Do you ask what this is ? It is 
this, that the gathering spoken of, is a gathering 
together, and a gathering together in one, yea, a 
gathering together in one all things or the uni- 
verse in Christ. According to the common faith, 
which I presume you believe and preach, so far 
from the wicked being gathered in Christ, and 
gathered together in one in him with the right- 
eous, they are to be separated from them forever. 
But according to the apostle, and even according 
to yourself, the universe is to be gathered togeth- 
er again and reunited under one head, Christ. 
Surely with no propriety can it be said, that the 
wicked and righteous are gathered together in one 
in Christ, if this is not voluntary. What kind of 
reunion could it be of the universe in him, if the 
greater part is to remain in eternal rebellion 
against God ? It must be a strange special bond 
of intercommunication, by which such different 
beings are held together. How the wicked in 
misery forever, can be said to be in Christ, and 
gathered together, yea, reunited in him with the 
rest of the universe, I must leave you to explain, 
for it is beyond my comprehension. 

2. Let us now consider the time, in which this 
gathering together in one all things, (tapanta) the 
universe is to be accomplished. It is, ' in the 



64 



LETTERS TO 



dispensation of the fulness of times? To as- 
certain the meaning of this sentence, it will be 
necessary to pay some attention to the Greek 
words translated, dispensation, fulness, and times. 
Oikonomian translated dispensation, says Park- 
feurst, signifies, 6 A spiritual dispensation, manage- 
ment or economy, 1 Cor. ix. 17 ; Eph. i. 10, and 
iii. 2 ; Col. i. 25 ; J Tim. i. 4. Oikonomian 
Theu, the dispensation of God, i. e. of divine 
grace or favor to man through Christ. 5 

On the word Fleromatos, translated fulness, 
Parkhurst thus writes, 6 The fulness of time de- 
notes the completion of a particular period of 
time before ordained and appointed. 1 Eph. i. 10; 
Gal. iv. 4.' It ought to be noticed here, that 
he not only quotes the text we are consider- 
ing, but the phrase in it, c the fulness of time,' 
which he explains, c a particular period of time 
before ordained and appointed, 7 and 6 the com- 
pletion' of this particular period of time. 

On the word Jcairon translated times, he thus 
writes, 'Severianus thus distinguishes between 
chronos and kairos; chronos, says he, denotes 
mekos the length or space of time, but kairos 
signifies eukairian, due or proper time, oppor- 
tunity.' 

Such Sir, are the explanations of Mr. Park- 
hurst, who was not a Universalist. Let us put 
these together and see what they amount to. 
c That in the dispensation or economy of divine 
grace or favor to man, and in the completion of 
die time before ordained and appointed, yea the 



MR, STUART, 



65 



due or proper time, he might gather together in 
one (ta panto) the universe in Christ even in 
him.' It ought to be observed, that the apostle 
does not say, < that in the dispensation of the ful- 
ness of time, but times. At various periods of 
time during this dispensation of grace, God had 
gathered together in Christ part of the all things 
or universe; and as has been already noticed, this 
is to be completed just before Christ delivers up 
the kingdom to God, or as in this passage, the 
completion or fulness of times. Some additional 
remarks I shall have occasion to make on the 
word 6 times 5 in considering the following pas- 
sage. 

i Acts iii. 20, 21 — 1 And he shall send Jesus 
Christ, which before w T as preached unto you ; 
whom the heavens must receive until the times 
of restitution of all things (pant on) 3 which God 
hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy proph- 
ets since the world began.' I need not inform 
you, that (pantori) in this passage, as in Heb. i. 
1 — 4, is equivalent to (ta panta) the universe. 
The following things in it demand consideration. 

1st. The restitution mentioned. The original 
word (apoTcatastasis) translated restitution, signi- 
fies, ' restitution, restoration, regulation.' — See 
Parkhurst. After other remarks, he says, c But 
Raphelius comparing Acts iii. 21 with 1 Cor. xv. 
25, thinks that (apoTcatastasis) properly signifies 
a settling of all things, or a restoring of them 
to a state of tranquility after wars and tumults, 
This learned and accurate critic shews that Polyb- 
6* 



66 



LETTERS TO 



ius applies the word in this view, comparing 1 
Cor. xv. 24, 25.' If this person, whom Park- 
hurst calls a learned and accurate critic, be cor- 
rect in his explanation of this word, it not only 
establishes the doctrine of universal salvation, 
harmonizes with 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, and other 
texts, but exhibits something peculiarly pleasing 
to the mind. What, my dear Sir, has this world 
been since sin entered it but the theatre of wars 
and tumults ? So much so, that the heart sickens 
at the tale of woe, which history and even our 
own experience afford. Is it not then a heart 
reviving consideration, that the period is to arrive, 
when tranquility and peace shall be restored to 
all the universe of God ? But you know, Sir, 
that according to the common doctrine of the 
endless punishment of a great part of the human 
race, tranquility and peace shall never be restored 
to all the universe. No ; instead of any thing 
like this being accomplished at the period men- 
tioned in this text, it is then properly speaking, 
that eternal tumult and misery are to commence. 
One thing is certain, that if the word restitution 
in this passage means any thing good, this good 
is to all, for it is c the restitution of all things 
(pantori) the universe. 5 But let us 

2d. Consider the time at which this restitution 
of all things is to be accomplished. Something 
has been said on this point already, and if I do 
not mistake, something further may- be learned 
from this passage. Let it be then observed, that 
in Acts i. 9 — 12, we have an account of Jesus 



MR. STUART, 



67 



being received up into heaven. In the passage 
before us, we are told, c the heavens must receive 
him (or rather retain him) until the times of the 
restitution of all things/ The time then of this 
restitution of all things, is that mentioned in Acts 
i. 11, when Jesus shall so come in like manner as 
the disciples saw him go into heaven. 5 Observe 
Sir, the precise agreement of Luke in this passage, 
with Paul in the passages already considered. 
They agree not only in the work to be done, but 
also the time of its accomplishment. Luke calls 
the work to be done the restitution of all things, 
and Paul calls it subduing all things, and both 
agree as to the time, the coming of Jesus. 

In addition to the remarks above on the word 
6 times' I submit for consideration the following. 
The c times of the restitution.' The word 
chronos, signifies, according to Parkhurst, 6 time, 
or denoting the completion or duration of time.' 
May nottiuke therefore use the language in the 
plural to intimate, that, at this period, this restitu- 
tion partially going on at different times, should 
then be fully and finally accomplished. Accord- 
ing to the remarks of Parkhurst, it means 6 the 
completion of the times of the restitution of all 
things or the universe. 5 I am aware, that some 
of the best Greek scholars say, ' nouns when 
used in a general or in an amplified sense are 
often put in the plural, although the things which 
they signify are naturally singular. 5 It would 
be tedious to enter into a minute consideration 
here, but in this^md other texts, where the word 



68 



LETTERS TO 



times occurs, I would request those who have 
more time to spare than I have, to give the texts 
at least an examination. But be this as it may, 
it does not in the least affect the general remarks 
which have been made on the above passages. 
I am your's respectfully, 

W. Balfour. 



LETTER VIII. 



April 14, 1821. 
Sir, — The next passage I quote for your con- 
sideration is, Heb. i. 1—4. God who at sundry 
tinies, and in diverse manners spake in*times past 
unto the fathers, by the prophets, hath in these 
last days, spoken unto us by his Son, whom he 
hath appointed heir of all things, (panton) by 
whom also he made the worlds ; who being the 
brightness of his glory, and the express image of 
his person, and upholding all things (ta panta ) 
the universe by the word of his power/ &c. 
Notice here, that Christ is said to uphold all 
things, or, (ta panta) the universe. Is not this the 
same all things, which in the passage he is said 
to be heir of? What he upholds, and what he 
is appointed heir of, are the same, and this is, (ta 
panta) the universe. Christ then is appointed 



MR. STUART. 



69 



ffeir, or as some translate and explain the pas- 
sage, < possessor of the universe. 5 He is not 
indeed yet come into the full possession of his 
inheritance, but we are assured that all things are 
to be subdued to him. I need not stop to notice, 
how exactly this passage agrees with Phil. ii. 9, 
10, and Rev. v. 13, and your comments on them. 
Passing this, permit me to ask, — If Christ is the 
heir of the universe, will he leave any part of his 
inheritance unsubdued ? You know that accord- 
ing to the popular belief, a great part of this in- 
heritance, is to remain forever in rebellion and 
misery. But I ask further, if the greater part of 
the human race are to live in eternal rebellion 
and misery, is Christ very highly exalted, or hon- 
ored, by being appointed heir to such an inherit- 
ance ? But permit me to ask once more, if a 
great part of the universe is to continue forever 
in rebellion and misery, may it not be said with 
more truth, that the devil is appointed heir of the 
universe ? And that God hath given all things 
into his hands ? I am shocked myself, sir, at 
such questions, but I put them for the purpose of 
leading you, and myself, and all my readers, to a 
candid and careful re-examination of this very 
important subject. It is possible we may be 
mistaken. Indeed, if we are not, but it is a fact, 
that all who have not given evidence in this world 
of being subdued to Christ, are to perish forever, 
the greater part of the universe of God in ages 
past have certainly perished. I presume you do 
not believe, that more than one in ten of those 



70 



LETTERS TO 



living in what are called Christian lands give such 
evidence. In a sermon by Mr. Ward, lately 
from India, he made the following statement. 
India within the Ganges, contains one hundred 
and fifty millions of human beings, all, not only 
without the knowledge of God, but grossly and 
superstitiously wicked. This course, such an im- 
mense population, had been pursuing for two 
thousand years. You can easily calculate, what 
an immense number during this period must have 
perished forever. But what is even this to the 
whole world, since God created man upon it. It 
is the mere dust of the balance to those, who 
must now be lifting up their eyes in hopeless de- 
spair. Whether this doctrine be true or not, one 
thing I am convinced cannot be true. It is this 
Sir,— that the greater part of men who have 
preached, and do now preach this doctrine, do 
not believe it themselves. Had they no doubts 
of its truth, what zeal, what labors, what hard- 
ships, what self-denial, w T hat disinterestedness, 
should we not see in them to save men from such 
misery. I am disposed, from the sermons I heard 
Mr. Ward preach, to think he is at heart a Uni- 
versalist. I infer this, from the texts he selected 
to preach from, the universal sentiments he ad- 
vanced about the subjects of Christ, the quota- 
tions he often made from the bible in proof and 
illustration of his subject, and his hardly ever in- 
troducing a single sentence about the future and 
eternal misery of so many human beings. His 
claims in their behalf, were for the most part, if 



MR. STUART. 



71 



not entirely urged, on the ground of reclaiming 
them from their present ignorance, superstition 
and wretchedness. To the best of my recollec- 
tion, I never heard him once urge the argument of 
future eternal misery in his discourses. To put 
eternal misery out of the question, is not the re- 
claiming men from such things, worthy of all that 
has been done, or can be done, by those who 
know the blessedness of the gospel and its effects. 
I have introduced these remarks to show, that if 
Christ is the appointed heir of the universe, and 
if the common views of men about those to be 
saved are correct, but few comparatively are to 
be his obedient and happy subjects. This is what 
time past warrants us to say, and admitting that 
the gospel is successful to the full extent of our 
expectations in the time to come, yet it must be 
allowed, if the greater part of the human race 
are at last saved ; yet not a few of them are per- 
ished for ever. But I proceed to notice, 

Phil. hi. 21, ■ Who shall change our vile body, 
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious 
body, according to the working whereby he is 
able even to subdue all things (ta panta) the uni- 
verse unto himself. 5 It is here as in the pre- 
ceding texts, 6 ta panta, the universe.' Besides, 
the word translated subdue, is the same as in 1 
Cor. xv. 24 to 28. Heb. ii. 8, and other texts 
already considered. If I have proved that the 
subjection in these texts, is a willing subjection, 
the proof equally applies here. In this text 
Christ's ability to subdue all things to himself, is 



72 



LETTERS TO 



expressly asserted, and I presume you will not 
dispute his willingness. Indeed this is included 
in the word which expresses his ability. It de- 
serves our notice, Sir, that this subjection, is said 
to be ' unto himself.' This language corresponds 
to the language of 1 Cor. 15th, Col. 1st, and 
other texts, which have been considered. 

There are, my dear Sir, a number of texts 
more, in which ta panta occur, or, what is equiv- 
alent to ta panta, which I might introduce. But 
as these would lead to similar remarks, I deem a 
distinct consideration of them unnecessary. Suf- 
fer me therefore in a general w T ay to notice the 
following things. In examining the passages 
where ta panta occurs, &c. I have observed, 1st. 
That the creation of all things or ta panta the 
universe is ascribed to God the Father. Heb. 
iii. 4. Rev. iv. 11. : Rom. xi. 36. 2 Cor. v. 
18. 1 Cor. viii. 6. 2 Peter iii. 4. Acts xiv. 
15. Eph. iv. 6. Notwithstanding that in these 
passages God the Father is said to have created 
all things, yet 1 find, 

2d. That in the following he is said to have 
created all things, or ta panta the universe, by 
Jesus Christ. See Col. i. 16. Heb. ii. 10. 
Eph. iii. 9. 1 Cor. viii. 6. John L 3. Not 
only is the universe said to be made by him, but 
also for him. Heb. ii. 10. Besides he is said 
to uphold all things. Heb. i. 4. Suffer me to 
notice, 

3d. That these all things, or ta panta the uni- 
verse, which Christ is said to have made, and up- 



MR. STUART. 



73 



holds, and which is for him, as well as by him, 
he is expressly said to be, 'appointed heir of,' 
to be Lord of, Acts x. 36. And that the Father 
hath delivered it to him, Mat. xi. 27. Yea giv- 
en it into his hands, John iii. 35, and xiii. 3. 
And that God hath given him power over it, John 
xvii. 2. Matt, xxviii. 18. Compare John v. 
20, and xvi. 15, and xvii. 7. 

Here, Sir, I finish my remarks on the texts in 
which ta panta are found. In concluding, I shall 
state for your serious consideration, some things 
which occurred to me in the course of my inves- 
tigations. 

1st. Is not the number of texts, w T hich I have 
brought forward, about as many as you have done, 
to prove the divinity of Christ? If you should 
say, you only brought forward a few out of the 
many which you could have adduced in proof of 
this doctrine ; it is likely the Universalist would 
reply, that I have only afforded a small specimen 
of the texts, which they could adduce in proof of 
theirs. But what you observe to Mr. Channing, 
I think is just, that it is not the number, but the 
nature of the texts which can. prove any doctrine. 
A law a thousand times repeated, does not make 
it more certainly a law, than if only mentioned 
once. Bu', 

2d. Are any of the texts which you have 
quoted in proof of Christ's divinity, more plain 
and explicit than those I have quoted in proof 
of universal salvation ? Does any one text say 
more plainly and explicitly that Christ is God^ 



74 



LETTERS TO 



than the texts I have quoted say, that all things 
shall be subdued unto him, arid that God hath by 
him reconciled all things unto himself? How 
then do your texts prove Christ's divinity, and 
those I have quoted do not prove universal salva- 
tion ? Pray deliver yourself from this arbitrary 
mode of explaining the Bible if you can do it, by 
some rational explanation. How can you blame 
Mr. C banning and others for explaining away 
your plain texts in favor of Christ's divinity, and 
yet feel no blame in explaining away equally 
plain texts in favor of universal salvation. Can- 
dor and consistency certainly demand, that you 
should not be silent upon this subject. 

3d. Have I, in these letters, or do Universalists, 
resort to the original languages and put them to 
the torture to prove their doctrine, as you, and 
those whom you oppose, do in the controversy 
about the trinity ? This, I think, will not be as- 
serted. The force of all I have advanced, you 
have furnished me in your criticisms about ta 
panta. I have only shown, that in judging Mr. 
C banning you have condemned yourself. So far 
as I have looked into the writings of Universalists, 
I find they take our common translation as they 
find it, and attempt to prove their doctrine by it. 
Your comments, and your criticisms on the orig- 
inal, as I think I have shown, both tend strongly 
to confirm them in their opinions. The orthodox, 
are not more under obligations of gratitude to you 
for your letters in proving Christ's divinity, than 
are the Universalists, in establishing universal sal- 
vation, 



MR. STUART. 



75 



4th. In any one of the texts on which I have 
commented, what false rule of interpretation have 
I adopted, to wrest it from its plain obvious mean- 
ing? If my rules of interpretation are false, yours 
cannot be true, for they are the same. I will feel 
greatly obliged to you, or any other man, who 
will show in a single instance, that I have devi- 
ated from your rules of interpretation or modes of 
reasoning. 

5th. Could you have availed yourself of as 
many explanations and concessions from Mr. 
Channing, as I have done from you and Dr. 
Campbell, what would you have said ? Had he 
in a controversy with the Universalists, intimated 
as plainly that Christ is the supreme God, as you 
have done that the universe shall perform spirit- 
ual and divine worship to Christ, would you not 
have quoted him with triumph? You have quoted 
authors in your letters in proof of your views. 
I therefore put this question solemnly to your 
conscience, — Are any of your quotations more 
plainly and forcibly to your purpose in proof of 
Christ's divinity, than those I have made from 
you and Dr. Campbell, are in favor of universal 
salvation? If you have proved that spiritual 
worship is rendered to Christ, and if this proves 
his divinity, it is equally plain by your own ex- 
planations the universe are to perform it, and this 
proves universal salvation. I am sure you are 
too sensible a man not to perceive this, and I 
hope too candid to deny it. 

6th. It seems to me, that in proving three per- 



76 



LETTERS TO 



sons in the God-head, you are obliged to adopt a 
course, which the Universalists seldom if ever do 
in proving universal salvation. I shall explain 
myself. Is it not a fact, Sir, that the doctrine of 
three persons in the God-head, is attempted to 
be proved by passages, and these few in number, 
by way of inference ? These inferences are 
sometimes not of the most obvious kind. Do not 
the Universalists quote plain declarations of scrip- 
ture in proof of their doctrine ? Besides, when 
you are pushed into a corner by argument in 
proving your doctrine, is it not common to take 
shelter in this, — ' It is a mystery.' Have you 
ever found a Universalist flee for refuge to any 
thing like this ? It is very common with you, in 
regard to the trinity, to say, 6 The fact is reveal- 
ed, the mode we do not undertake to explain' 
Universalists not only refer you to passages de- 
claring the fact, that all men shall be saved, but 
to texts shewing how this is to be done. In 
short, do you ever hear of Universalists talking 
about their doctrine, as is often done about the 
trinity, — ' That it is above reason, though not 
contrary to it,' and spending volume after vol- 
ume to explain their doctrine as is done about the 
trinity, yet leaving us as far from understanding 
it as ever ? Do they use a word in defining their 
doctrine as you do the word person, which no man 
ever has, and I fear will be able to tell us, what 
is meant by it? It is evident, that you felt puz- 
zled and perplexed with it ; so much so, that you 
wish it had never been used in the symbols of 



MR. STUART, 



77 



the churches. You forget my dear Sir, to inform 
us, what ought to have been used instead of it, 
or what you would substitute in its place if it was 
laid aside. If Universalists are driven to such 
perplexities in defence of their doctrine, I shalL 
hesitate to pronounce it truth. In fine ; is the 
doctrine of three persons in one God, a doctrine 
more capable of proof from the Bible, and more 
consonant to right reason and common sense, 
than the doctrine of universal salvation ? Had 
you been brought up a Universalist as you have 
been a trinitarian, and universal salvation was an 
article in the Andover creed, yea your place as 
Professor and temporal interest led you to defend 
it as you have done that of the trinity, which of 
these two doctrines could you most easily defend? 
Could you not adduce as many, and as powerful 
arguments, drawn from scripture, reason and com- 
mon sense, to support the one, as you have done 
in support of the other? I think you would at 
least hesitate to answer this question in the neg- 
ative. 

7th. Whether does the doctrine of universal 
salvation, or its opposite, give the most honorable 
and amiable view of the character of God, and 
which is most calculated to produce peace and 
good will among men ? As to the first of these, 
little need be said, for surely if the doctrine of 
universal salvation can be fairly and fully estab- 
lished from the Bible, it, to the reason of men, 
has the preference. It is not very easy for us to 
see, God's character honorable and amiable, in 
7* 



78 



LETTERS TO 



bringing a vast number of beings into existence, 
whom he foresaw would be (not to say as some 
do predetermined that they should be) for ever 
miserable. I never found one who thus talked 
about God's dooming some to endless misery, that 
ever believed themselves of this number. To 
say the least, those who thus speak of such a 
tremendously awful subject, have given too just 
cause for Universalists to say, — that the God of 
such persons, if they say the truth about him, is 
very like a tyrant. As to the second, certainly 
the doctrine of universal salvation, if it is proved 
to be true, has the advantage of the other in pro- 
moting peace and good will among men. The 
doctrine 3 is what every unbiassed, benevolent 
mind wishes true, if consistent with the will of 
God. It is what every good man prays for, that 
all may be saved, and what his exertions go to 
promote. Admitting the doctrine true for a mo- 
ment, though men might look on each other as 
wrong in many respects, yet not as finally to be 
excluded from happiness. Contemplating each 
other as children of the same Father, and finally 
to enjoy the same blessedness in heaven, it is 
surely better calculated to beget peace and benev- 
olence among them, than the opposite doctrine 
which leads to endless strife and contention here, 
and one party consigning the other over to end- 
less misery in the world to come, If the doc- 
trine can be proved beyond dispute true, I think 
you will allow, that all the religious sects may 
bear with each other, yea live in union together. 
But, 



MR. STUART. 



79 



8th. It is not true as sorae have affirmed, and 
as some, to prevent inquiry, have held up as a 
bug-bear to others, that this doctrine leads to 
licentiousness. Say some, if I believed this doc- 
trine true, I would take my fill of sin. This, Sir, 
I have always considered very unfair treatment of 
the Universalists. It will be used by no man, 
who does not wish to excite popular prejudice 
against them. The same argument was brought 
against the apostles, and indeed is to this day 
brought against every man, who preaches the 
grace of God as they did. If the grace of God, 
teaches one man to deny ungodliness and worldly 
lusts, it also teaches all who know it. If it teach- 
es one to say, it teaches all to say, — < Shall we, 
sin, because grace aboundeth ? God forbid. How 
shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer 
therein.' No Universalist that I have heard of, 
ever held the doctrine that men were saved in 
their sins, but hold that all men are or will final- 
ly be saved from their sins. To draw inferences 
from their doctrine, which they do not admit but 
deny, and such inferences as men do and have 
drawn from the doctrine of grace, by which any 
can be saved, is far from being honorable. Mis- 
representation may indeed, for a time, promote 
the cause of a party, but never can serve the 
cause of truth. A man conscious of truth on 
his side, despises such dishonorable means to pro- 
mote it in the world. About this I am confident 
we are agreed. 

9th. But you may say, are there not many 



80 



LETTERS TO 



passages of scripture which seem irreconcilable 
with the doctrine of universal salvation ? I ad- 
mit this, but submit for your serious consideration 
the following remarks. Are there more texts to 
be found which appear irreconcilable with univer- 
sal salvation, than there are found which seem 
irreconcilable with the doctrine of the trinity ? 
You well know what a host of texts your oppo- 
nents muster against your views. They have 
not a few texts which are, or seem to be explicit 
in setting aside your views. Even some of these, 
yourself and other trinitarian writers have admit- 
ted are not without force, and feel not a little per- 
plexed in reconciling them with this doctrine. I 
more than doubt, if the number of texts against 
yous views are not greater, and I fear you would 
find yourself at as much loss to explain them con- 
sistently with the doctrine of the trinity, as the 
Universalists those texts which militate against 
their doctrine. In this respect they at least stand 
on equal ground with you, and for the same rea- 
son I should reject their doctrine, I ought not to 
believe yours. I might urge here, that the texts 
in which it is, or seems to be taught, that Christ 
is not the supreme God, are far more in number, 
and are as explicit, as those which seem to teach 
that all men will not finally be saved. But I have 
to urge here, can we find any texts which more 
strongly and plainly declare, that part of the uni- 
verse are to be eternally miserable, than has been 
adduced to prove that the universe shall be sub- 
dued to Christ, and shall render to him spiritual 



MR. STUART. 



81 



and divine worship. I think, I have shown from 
the texts you have quoted, and the comments you 
have made, that your statements are at variance 
with your views of eternal misery. They are to 
me perfectly irreconcilable with it. I have called, 
and do again call upon you to show, how they 
can be reconciled. When you have done this, 
it is no more than reasonable, that you demand 
of the Universalists to reconcile their doctrine with 
those texts which are at variance with it. If their 
views are at variance with the scriptures, I think 
I have shown that you are at variance with your- 
self. Could I have quoted as much from a Uni- 
versalist, as I have done from you in favor of 
eternal misery, would you not have said that he 
contradicted his own reecived doctrine. But I 
have further to remark, that though w 7 e may in 
our writings contradict ourselves, one thing is cer- 
tain, that God does not contradict himself in the 
Bible. The contradictions men perceive there, 
arise from their ignorance, and vanish as they 
become better acquainted with it. I do study 
this book, and wish to avail myself of every 
means to ascertain its true meaning, for, to ascer- 
tain this, I most cordially agree with you is true 
orthodoxy. That we may both study it as we 
ought, be taught by the spirit of all truth to un- 
derstand it, and confess and practice what it re- 
veals, is the sincere desire of yours respectfully. 

W. Balfour. 



[ I fondly thought, Mr. Stuart would have made some 
reply to these additional letters. But after waiting two 



82 



LETTERS TO 



months in expectation, and no reply being made, I con-, 
eluded to make one effort more, and accordingly wrote 
him the following communication. I wished him to 
know, to what result his book with my own investigations 
were likely to lead me. I still hoped, he might make an 
effort to save me from Universalism.] 



LETTER IX. 



June 16th, 1821. 
Sir,— Permit me only once more to address 
you. If you thought my communications un- 
worthy of an answer, you might have said so in 
a few* words, and perhaps I might have been 
satisfied. At the time I wrote them, I considered 
there were things stated, which required some 
explanation from you, and have not yet seen any 
reason to change my opinion. I find a writer 
in the Universalist Magazine of May 12th, whose 
signature is R. C. is of the same mind. Though 
unknown to me, I feel obliged to him in urging 
you to reply to my communications. I hope 
what he has said, may induce you to do, 
what you must feel an incumbent duty,- — To rec- 
oncile your statements with the doctrine of endless 
misery. If you can do this, and yet refuse to do 
it, be pleased to assign some reason for your 
conduct. 



MR. STUART. 



83 



My object in writing you once more I shall now 
explain. Since I first wrote you, the little time 
I can spare, has been employed in examining this 
subject. I have directed my attention to the 
scriptures, and all my researches are conducted 
with this view, to ascertain what is truth. The 
plan I have laid down, is on an extensive scale, 
and find it will take much time and labor to finish 
it. It has cost me much time and labor already, 
and I increasingly find it will require much more, 
before all my researches are completed. I do 
not wish to anticipate the final result, but so far 
as my investigations have yet been conducted, I 
fear, that if I am an honest man, I must be a 
Universalist. Now my dear Sir, I wish you on 
reading this to pause and ask yourself, 'Am I 
doing right, not to interpose to prevent this result ? 
Can I thus suffer a man to be led astray by any 
thing I have written, after such repeated and 
earnest solicitations for necessary explanations ? 
Should this man perish, and others through his 
instrumentality, all originating from my book, can 
I wash my hands and say, I am clean, your blood 
be upon your own head?' The God of heaven 
be witness between us, that the statements on 
which I took the liberty to remark, were the 
means of shaking my faith, and yet you refuse 
to say any thing to re-establish it. I solemnly 
declare, that I have been sincere in all I have 
written, and unfeignedly have desired, that you 
would show me, if possible, how you Reconcile 
your statements with the doctrine of eternal mis- 



84 



LETTERS TO 



ery. I have urged you until I am ashamed, yet 
you assign no reason for your silence. What am 
I, Sir, in such a case to do ? Is there any other 
alternative left me, but either to shut my eyes, 
quiet my convictions, and sit down contented, an 
implicit believer in the doctrine of eternal misery; 
or, to gird myself to the task, candidly and pa- 
tiently to examine this subject fully for myself? 
The last of these I prefer, and if life and health 
be granted me, shall give it a very full investiga- 
tion. Should my inquiries end, as I fear they 
must, you may perhaps have an opportunity of 
seeing, that I have neither hastily, nor carelessly 
made up my mind on this very important subject. 
The observations I have already by me, col- 
lected in my examination of the scriptures, are 
by far too voluminous for Magazine communica- 
tions. I shall not trouble the world with another 
book, if I have not something to offer on this 
subject, strong and conclusive. I feel a solemn 
responsibility for what I may write, knowing that 
it will outlive me, and may be doing much mis- 
chief in the world, when it is out of my power to 
prevent it. If you have got any thing to offer, 
I entreat you now to produce it. I am open to 
conviction. What is truth is my object, and to 
argument and evidence drawn from the scriptures 
I shall pay attention, from whatever quarter they 
may come. To any other mode of settling this 
question, I shall be like the deaf adder. When 
once my investigations are finished, and I am 
fully satisfied that the Bible teaches no such doc- 



MR. STUART. 



85 



trine as endless misery, 1 shall neither be afraid 
nor ashamed to avow it, and if necessary to de- 
fend it. My views may then possibly be submit- 
ted to you and the world at large for examination. 

If any thing which I could say or do, would 
induce you to come forward to prevent me from 
imbibing error, most gladly would I perform it. 
If after this, you still refuse to comply with my 
reasonable request, all the world, yourself not 
excepted, ought to free me of blame. If any 
thing uncandid in my matter, or indecorous in my 
manner, has induced you to be silent, forgive me 
this wrong. Nothing could be further from the 
feelings of my heart towards you. Believe me I 
very highly esteem you, and am sorry to bid you 
adieu. W. Balfour. 

[ This letter, drew forth from Mr. Stuart the following 
answer, addressed to the Editor of the Magazine.] 

To the Editor of the Magazine, 

Sir, — I acknowledge the receipt of several 
numbers of your paper, containing letters address- 
ed to me, by some anonymous author. In a re- 
cent number, which I have received, the author 
seems to take it hardly, that I have not noticed 
any of his former communications. I have sure- 
ly had no intention to treat him ill ; and I believe 
I may venture to say, that he has no just reason 
to complain of me. Anonymous animadvertions 
in newspapers may be replied to by those, who > 
have no other occupation which prevents their 
8 



86 



LETTERS TO 



engaging in composing pieces of such a nature. 
But every man, who is deeply engaged in profes- 
sional business may surely be excused from this 
kind of warfare. 

Besides ; if your correspondent be really a se- 
rious Inquirer after truth, as he professes to be, 
he could certainly choose some better method of 
research than by writing newspaper criticisms. 
Can he candidly believe, that I am obliged to 
spend my time in writing discussions, for the sat- 
isfaction of a single individual, which would oc- 
cupy the time that must be spent in performing 
duties that relate to many ? or does he think, that 
I love to court disputes ? — In his private letter to 
me, why did he not, like an honest inquirer after 
truth, give his name, that 1 might reply to his let- 
ter? Or why, if he wishes to know my senti- 
ments relative to his exegesis of certain passages 
of the scripture, did he not call on me, or seek 
an opportunity of personal and friendly conference? 
This he could have at almost any time. 

In short, to speak plainly, I have thought from 
what I have read, that your correspondent has 
already fixed his system of belief, and only wished 
to solicit to a dispute. For this I have no desire; 
though of it I have no fear. But I must know 
the name and object of my antagonist, before I 
enter the lists ; and contend on some other ground 
than that of a newspaper. 

If your correspondent is not satisfied with these 
reasons, he can easily obtain satisfaction, by a 
friendly conference. I am indeed quite unable 



MR. STUART. 



87 



to reason as he does about the meaning of the 
scriptures — but I cannot spare time to give the 
reasons for such dissent in writing, at present. 
Your obed ? t. servant, M. Stuart. 

Andover, X9th June. 

[To this letter of Mr. Stuart's, we returned the follow- 
ing answer, which closed my communications.] 

LETTERX. 



August, 11, 1821. 
Sir, — I am glad you notice my communica- 
tions, but am sorry you do not comply with my 
reasonable request. You do not deny but that 
it was reasonable. It even seems to be admitted, 
that your statements on which I remarked, are at 
variance with the doctrine of eternal misery. I 
am not charged with having misunderstood you, 
treated you uncandidly, or used unkind and dis- 
respectful language. You do not say, your state- 
ments are false, nor do you profess yourself able, 
and willing to reconcile them with this doctrine ; 
but say things of me, which upon reflection, I 
think you must regret. For example, I am not 
a serious and honest inquirer after truth ; my sys- 
tem of belief is already fixed : and that I am 
your antagonist, and only wish to solicit a dispute 
with you. Of the truth of these charges, I 
leave others to judge, from what I have written. 



88 



LETTERS TO 



I can only say, my conscience bears me testimo- 
ny, that in every one of them you are mistaken. 
Only shew how you reconcile your statements 
with the doctrine of eternal misery, and, however 
unsatisfactory your explanation may be to my 
mind, I shall be silent, unless you desire my 
further correspondence. This is the sum of all 
I ever requested. This, my dear Sir, is all 1 ask. 

I was fully aware, that your time did not per- 
mit you to write at large on this subject. Such 
a demand I have never made. All I have re- 
quested, is, that in the briefest possible way, you 
give me a clue, or a few hints, whereby I can 
reconcile the statements you have made, with 
your belief in eternal punishment. You have 
been the cause (unintentionally) of creating diffi- 
culties in my mind ; and I have thought that I 
had some claim on you for removing them. If I 
have increased these difficulties by my own inves- 
tigations since I read your book, I have no claim 
on you for these, more than on any other man, 
but must settle them on my own responsibility 
the best way I can. 

However, much such an explanation was need- 
ed, and however reasonable my request, it seems 
it is not granted. You must have the name, and 
object of your antagonist, and even then, you 
will not enter the list with him on the ground of 
a newspaper. I never was, my dear Sir, yoi^r 
antagonist. I never wished to enter the list with 
you, or solicit a dispute. How you can be yet 
ignorant of my object^ is to me surprising. It is 



MR. STUART 89 

then for your information this, — Rationally, and 
scriptiirally to reconcile your statements, on which 
I used the freedom to comment, with the doctrine 
of endless misery. My reasons for not giving 
my name at first, and why I yet decline doing so, 
I shall now briefly state. First then, because 
the world is ruled by names. As your name 
gives weight and force to all you say and write, 
I am not willing that mine should be the means 
of rendering useless, any thing which I have to 
advance. Let men judge what I say uninfluenc- 
ed by my name. Farther, I had no occasion to 
give my name, for I was not writing an answer to 
your book, but only requesting some explanation 
from you, about a very small part of it. Besides, 
you could as easily shew, without my name, as 
with it, how you reconciled your statements with 
the doctrine of eternal misery. How my name 
could be of any service to you about this, I am 
unable to perceive. I may add that common 
prudence dictates, I should not give my name, 
until my mind is brought to some decision on this 
subject. You have unsettled my mind. I have 
urged you to say something to establish it; and, 
until, this is done, or I am convinced that the 
doctrine of eternal misery cannot be supported 
from the Bible, why should I give people occa- 
sion to say I had become a Universalist, when I 
am only using means to avoid it. But a still 
more powerful reason than all these, has operated 
with me, not to seek satisfaction by personal con- 
ference, or private letter. It is the following. I 



90 



LETTERS TO 



am not the solitary individual, my dear Sir, who 
has been, or is likely to be affected by your state- 
ments. Every reader of your book, is liable to 
this. That reader is no honor to you, nor will he 
profit himself much, who reads your book so 
carelessly, as not to perceive, that your statements 
strongly go to prove the idea of Universal Salva- 
tion. So long as the sun and moon endure, you 
may be quoted to prove this doctrine. A writer 
in the Universalist Magazine avers, that he never 
saw in so few words, any thing so conclusive in 
support of their sentiments. Though this writer 
is unknown to me, and though I have never con- 
versed with a single individual on the subject, I 
venture to say, that this declaration is that of the 
whole body of Universalists. I go further and 
say, that no candid reflecting man, who reads 
your book with attention , but must be of the same 
opinion. You see then, that with such impres- 
sions, I did not consider myself writing as you 
intimate, e newspaper criticisms/ to oblige you to 
spend your time, 6 in writing discussions for the 
satisfaction of a single individual.' No, my dear 
friend, I wished you to write for the benefit of all 
the Universalists, of all who read your book ; yea, 
of thousands yet unborn. You presume too 
much, if you think the Universalists so dull, as to 
overlook the pertinent statements you have made 
in their favor. Had I not brought them to view, 
long before now, they would likely have quoted 
you triumphantly. Why then blame me for not 
privately conferring with yon for my own satisfac- 



MR, STUART. 



91 



don ; when so many require also to be satisfied, 
how you reconciled your statements with your 
professed belief. I think you rather ought to be 
thankful, that thus you had a fair opportunity of 
retracting your statements, or shewing to all men 
how you did reconcile them. What a blessed 
opportunity you here let slip of saying something 
to convince the Universalists, and to turn them 
from their error ; or, at least, to leave them inex- 
cuseable. Is it nothing to you, that they perish 
in their error ? and is it nothing to you that your 
statements tend to confirm them in it, and in- 
crease their number ? 

I notice, that though you do not deny my com- 
munications to be without argument, yet you say, 
i I am indeed unable to reason as he does about 
the meaning of the scriptures ; but I cannot spare 
time to give the reasons for such dissent in writing 
at present/ May I use the freedom to suggest, 
that your time would not be unprofitably spent, 
in shewing to the young men under your care, 
how you reconcile your statements with the doc- 
trine of eternal misery ; and pointing out to them 
the fallacious nature, and pernicious tendency of 
my reasoning about the meaning of scripture? 
For my benefit, and that of the Universalists, yea 
of all others, you might easily give an abstract of 
your labors. I have to complain of the want of 
time as well as you. Be assured, Sir, it was not 
for the want of any other 6 occupation' I have 
engaged iji writing. That man must be very busy 
indeed, if, in a similar state of mind with me, he 



92 



LETTERS TO 



cannot redeem a little time to have his mind in- 
formed, and established on such a subject as the 
one before us. I really think you might have 
found a few moments, to reconcile your state- 
ments, and prevent their evil tendency on me, 
and others. About this subject, it is impossible 
for me to be at rest, until I either obtain satisfac- 
tion, or can persuade myself, that the future 
eternal conditions of men are mere trifles. 

It appears to me, that you have some secret 
conviction, that I am in league with the Univer- 
salists, and that all this writing is intended to in- 
volve you in a controversy with them, If it 
were so, I can see no possible reason you can 
have for declining an explanation, how you recon- 
cile your statements with eternal punishment. 
But I assure you no such thing is the case. What 
I have said is in the sincerity of my heart, and 
with no man on the face of the earth, have I ever 
exchanged a word on this subject. 

I cannot part with you without saying, that if 
I have caused you one unpleasant feeling, I re- 
gret it. If I have, as you intimate, perverted by 
my reasonings any part of the word of God, I 
deeply lament it. That man I shall esteem my 
best friend, who will take the trouble to correct 
me. Having never wished any dispute with you, 
but information from you, and this being denied, 
it is useless to spend one moment's time more on 
the subject. If I even wished a dispute with 
you, I must write a book before I obtain- it. This 
at present I am not prepared to do. Should I 



MR. STUART. 93 

ever be prepared, I hope I shall never write a 
book, for the sake of having a dispute with you, 
or any other man. This kind of w T ork I shall 
leave, to be done by those who delight in it. 
Should you feel disposed to give me the informa- 
tion I have requested, I shall consider myself as 
very much obliged to you. If you have not 
time to do this, would you be kind enough to re- 
fer me to some work, in which I may find this in- 
formation. If you decline both, you shall not 
very soon hear again from me, as I wish to de- 
vote all my leisure moments to the investigation 
of this deeply interesting subject. If want of 
time, be the reason why you do not reconcile 
your statements with the doctrine of everlasting 
misery, I am sure it cannot be for want of talents. 
Perhaps some may suspect that it arises from the 
impossibility of the thing. To me at present, it 
appears to be impossible. It is one thing for you 
not to fear a dispute with me, and quite another 
to perform an impossibility. If it can be very 
easily done, it only makes me the more urgent 
that it should be done. I am yours, &e. 

W. Balfour. 



• 



94 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



Such are my Letters to Mr. Stuart, and his note, de- 
clining all explanation, or reply to them. The reader 
can judge now, whether my request for an explanation 
was unreasonable, or that his silence was judicious. 

In looking over these letters for their present publica- 
tion, we have deemed it proper to read Mr. Stuart's let- 
ters again, which occasioned them. If in any case we 
had misunderstood or misrepresented him, now was the 
proper time to correct this, and apologise for it. And 
if he had modified, or explained away the statements on 
"which we remarked, it was also proper to notice the parts 
of his letters, which contained such modifications and 
explanations. But after a careful reperusal of them, we 
cannot perceive, that in any case we have misunderstood 
or misrepresented his meaning. Such a charge, was 
never to our knowledge brought against us, nor do w© 
think, he or any other person will bring it. So far from 
Iris making other statements, which modify or explain 
those on which our remarks are founded, we have discov- 
ered several things which strongly confirm them. On 
these additional statements of Mr. Stuart, I shall now 
make a few remarks, taking them up in the order I find 
them in his book. 

1. On page 67 he asks— c But what are the { all things, 
the universe (ta panta), which the Logos made, or cre- 
ated ?' He thus answers. ' A part of these ta panta, 
are in v. 10 represented as (o y kosmos) the world ; a term 
no where in the New Testament applied to the christian 
church, nor to men as morally amended by the Gospel.' 
Well, if this be true, and who can dispute it, it follows 
of course, that wherever kosmos the world, is used in the 
New Testament to designate persons, it must mean such 
as are not morally amended by the Gospel ; the world that 
lieth in wickedness mentioned 1 John v. 19. What then 
does the New Testament say concerning oykosmos, *the 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



95 



ivorld, those not morally amended by the Gospel ? Take 
the following texts as a specimen. 

In 1 John iv: 14, it is said — 1 And we have seen, and 
do testify, that the Father sent the Son, to be the Saviour 
of the world, (kosmos)? That is, according' to Mr, 
Stuart, God sent the Son to be the Saviour of those 
not morally amended by the Gospel. And in John 
iv : 42, it is said by the Samaritans — ' Now we be- 
lieve, not because of thy saying : for we have heard him 
ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the 
Saviour of the world, (kosmos).' That is, by Mr. Stuart's 
own shewing, they knew that this is indeed the Christ, 
the Saviour of those not morally amended by the Gospel. 

Again. In 1 Tim. i : 15, Paul says, ' Jesus Christ came 
into the world, (kosmos) to save sinners.' That is, Christ 
came into the world to save those not morally amended 
by the Gospel. In John iii : 17, it is said, ' God sent not 
his Son into the world, (kosmos) to condemn the world 
(kosmos), but that the world (kosmos), through him 
might be saved.' That is, according to Mr. Stuart, God 
sent not his Son into the world to condemn those not 
morally amended by the Gospel, but that those not mor- 
ally amended by the Gospel might be saved. And in 
John xii : 4, 'I came not to judge the world (kosmos), 
but to save the world (kosmos).' That is, Christ came 
not to judge those not morally amended by the Gospel, 
but to save those not morally amended by the Gospel. 

Again. It is said John i: 29, 'Behold the Lamb of 
God which taketh away the sin of the world, (kosmos).* 
That is, according to Mr. Stuart, behold the Lamb of 
God, who taketh away the sin of those not morally 
amended by the Gospel. And 1 John i: 2, £ And he is 
the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
also for the sins of the whole world, (olou tou kosmou.*)' 

* Compare with this text 1 Johnv: 19 in the Greek. The 
whole ivorld, for whose sins Christ was a propitiation, includes 
Jews and Gentiles, or the whole human race. Mr. Stuart is far 
away from old orthodoxy, for it maintained, Christ was only a 
propitiation for the sins of the elect. Now it is current ortho- 
doxy that be died for all men. Alas ! what are we coming to in 
these days 1 



96 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



That is, according to Mr. Stuart, Christ is the propitia- 
tion for the sins of the whole of those not morally 
amended by the Gospel. And Christ says, John vi: 33, 
6 1 am the bread of God which cometh down from heaven, 
and givethlife unto the world, (kosmos). Which means, 
according to Mr. Stuart, that Christ is the bread of God 
which giveth life unto those not morally amended by the 
Gospel. And Paul says, 2 Cor. v : 19, 4 God is in Christ 
reconciling the world (kosmos), unto himself, not impu- 
ting unto men their trespasses.' That is, according to 
Mr. Stuart, God is in Christ reconciling those not moral- 
ly amended by the Gospel to himself, not imputing their 
trespasses unto them. 

Such are a specimen of the texts I might quote, in 
illustration of the point in question. On the whole of 
them let it be observed 1. Mr. Stuart is correct in say- 
ing, ' o'kosmos the world, is a term no where in the New 
Testament applied to the Christian Church, nor to men 
as morally amended by the Gospel.' But it is evidently 
applied to those not morally amended by it, as the above 
texts shew. And he will agree with us when we add, 
that all the difference between the Church and them is, 
this moral amendment which the Gospel produces. Be- 
fore they were morally amended, they formed a part of 
this very world which lieth in wickedness. And not- 
withstanding their moral amendment, they are no more 
fit for the future immortal state, than the world which 
still lieth in wickedness. It seems to be forgotten by 
the Church, that none are fitted for this state, but by 
being sons of the resurrection. But the Church talk, as 
if they were saved from hell and fit for heaven, and af- 
ter all will confess that there is much sin and corruption 
about them. What member of the Church ever died a 
perfectly holy being? But if not perfectly holy and 
immortal, how are they fit for, the heaven described in 
the Bible ? And when they tell me, how they are to be 
purged from their sin and corruption after death, I will 
find a way for the purgation of all our race. 

2. Seeing it is certain, kosmos world, designates those 
not morally amended by the Gospel, how can Mr. Stuart 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



97 



make the above texts accord with his views of limited 
salvation ? Is it not plainly taught, that Christ is the 
Saviour of them; that he did not come to condemn but 
to save them ; that he is the propitiation for their sins ; 
hath taken them away ; God does not impute their tres- 
passes unto them ; but is in Christ reconciling the world 
to himself. Moreover, that Christ is the bread of God 
who giveth them life, etc. Now, we appeal to Mr. Stu- 
art's good sense, if it is not ridiculous exageration in the 
sacred writers, to call Christ the Saviour of the world, if 
they believed only few of them comparatively were to 
be saved by him ? And is it not insulting the misery of 
all not to be saved, to propose him as a Saviour to them? 
Let Mr. Stuart candidly consider, if believers in a par- 
tial salvation of our race, would have used such lan- 
guage as is contained in the above passages. He cer- 
tainly will allow, that it suits Universalists, and seems 
to have been written on purpose to prove their senti- 
ments. A believer in endless misery never could have 
written so loosely and unguardedly. 

3. But I would ask Mr. Stuart, if Christ died for all, 
is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world, yet the 
whole world is not to be saved by him, has he not died 
in vain for those not saved ? He has suffered for the 
very sins for which the damned shall suffer forever 
And although Christ took away their sins, God still im- 
putes them to them, contrary to his own declaration. 
Nor can it be true, that Christ is the bread of God who 
giveth life unto the world, if eternal death is to abide 
upon them. According to modern orthodoxy, in which 
Mr. Stuart seems to be a believer, the damned in hell 
to all eternity, are just as much indebted to the death of 
Christ as any saint before the throne of God ; he died 
as much for the former as the latter. Has not Mr. Stu- 
art told them, that they have 4 been redeemed by the death 
of God's own beloved SonV see Exegt. Essays p. 8. 
Pardon me for thinking it a diverse and strange doctrine, 
that all the subjects of endless misery, were redeemed 
by the death of Christ. Call it any thing but Calvin- 
ism, if Calvinism and Scripturism be the same thing. If 
9 



98 



CONCLUDING EEMARRS. 



this be orthodoxy, what is heterodoxy ? Not more than 
twenty years ago, it would have been called rank Ar- 
minianism, and reprobated by all good orthodox people. 

2. Mr. Stuart pp. 68, 69 thus writes. 4 In regard to 
the heavens being the work of Christ's hands, 5 it is an 
expression plainly of similar import to the one just ex- 
amined, (foundation of the earth) and signifies the crea- 
tion of the heavens. Thus Ps. viii. 4, 6 ; 'When I con- 
sider the heavens the work of thy hands ;' which is 
parallell with, the moon and stars which thou hast or- 
dained, (septuagint, ethemeliosas.) So in verse 6, 4 and 
hast placed him over the ivorks of thy hands ; all things 
hast thou put under his feet ; i. e. placed him over the 
creation.' Here Mr. Stuart tells us, that the words— 
4 and hast placed him over the works of thy hands ; all 
things hast thou put under his feet,' mean, 4 i. e. placed 
him over the creation.' Very well. Let us then inquire 
for what purpose, God hath placed Christ over the crea- 
tion.' Mr. Stuart shall inform us himself. On p. 101 of 
his letters, he quotes Rev. v. 8 — 14 and comments on it. 
As I have quoted the whole paragraph in my letters 
above, I shall only quote the following part of it. 4 And 
every creature which is in heaven, and on earth, and un- 
der the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are 
in them, heard I saying, blessing and honor, and glory, 
and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and 
to the lamb forever and ever.' To this Mr. Stuart im- 
mediately subjoins — 4 If this be not spiritual worship, 
and if Christ be not the object of it here, I* am unable to 
produce a case where worship can be called spiritual and 
divine.' And on p. 100, he thus explains the language of 
the passage, 4 things in heaven, earth, and under the 
earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New 
Testament writers for the universe (ta pan, or ta panta) .' 
See this more fully noted in the letters above. 

It is very plain then from Mr. Stuart's own shewing, 
that God placed Christ over the creation or universe, for 
the purpose of its rendering spiritual and divine wor- 
ship. He maintains the worship is spiritual and divine, 
and he shows the whole creation is to render it. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



99 



Whether it was God himself, or God by Christ who 
created the universe, is foreign to our present subject. 
But it may surely be asked, is it to the honor of either, 
to create a universe, when they must have forseen a 
part of this universe would be miserable forever ? Let 
Mr. Stuart say, if it was for God's pleasure it was creat- 
ed, can he believe it any pleasure to God, that instead of 
the whole creation rendering to him divine worship in 
heaven, a part must be miserable for ever in hell ? Must 
the song of the redeemed, be accompanied with the 
bowlings of the damned, to render it pleasing to Jeho- 
vah? And if God is pleased, with the endless punish- 
ment of a part of his rational creation, God and the devil, 
supposing such a being to exist, are both pleased with 
the same thing. The principal difference between God 
and the devil is, the latter would have been better pleas- 
ed, had God's pleasure been, to make our whole race 
forever miserable. And why was not this his pleasure, 
if he is as much glorified by the groans of the damned as 
the songs of the saved ? His impartiality, would at least 
have been more apparent to all his creatures. 

3. Again Professor Stuart says p. 77. ' epi panton 
theos, is literally, over all God,' i. e. supreme God. Com- 
pare with the phraseology here, the word panta (all) as 
used in a connexion which respects Christ, in Col. i. 17. 
Eph. i. 19—23. John xxxiii. 31. and 1 Cor. xv. 27. It 
is used in such passages, as a term of qualification, 
which serves to describe him as the head or ruler of the 
universe.' On this paragraph we have to remark — 1st. 
Let it be granted, epi panton theos, is literally, over all 
God. And let it be also granted, that 4 the word panta 
(all) as used in a connexion which respects Christ in' 
these texts, is 4 a term of qualification, which serves to 
describe him zshead or ruler of the universe.' These 
things being granted, which is all Mr. Stuart could de- 
sire, he can have no objection to see how panton and 
panta are used as terms of qualification to describe 
Christ in some other cases. We give the following- 
texts as a specimen. In 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, we are toM 
Christ ' died for all' (panton.) In 1 Tim. ii. 6, that he 



100 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



{ gave himself a ransom for all' (panton.) That God 
hath 6 appointed him heir of all' (panton,) Heb. i. 2. and 
is by him to 'reconcile all things (ta panta) unto himself,' 
Col. i. 19, 20. And ' that in the dispensation of the full- 
ness of times, is to gather together in one all things (ta 
panta) in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 
are on earth, even in him.' That is, according to Mr. 
Stuart's own statements, God is to gather together the 
universe in Christ. Accordingly, God hath 'put all 
things, (panta) under his feet.' Nor is Christ to deliver 
up the kingdom to God the father, until 4 all things (ta 
panta) are subdued unto him.' Heb. ii. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 
24—28. Besides, we are assured, Christ is 4 able to 
subdue all things (ta panta) unto himself.' Philip, iii. 
21. And the heavens are to retain him c until the resti- 
tution of all things (panton.) Phil. iii. 21. Acts iii. 21. 

Such are a few of the texts, in which panta, panton, 
and ta panta are used. See others noticed in the let- 
ters. We now beg leave to ask Mr. Stuart, why these 
texts, should not be admitted as describing Christ, as 
dying for the universe ; as being a ransom for the uni- 
Yerse ; as the heir of the universe; as the reconciler of 
the universe ; as the gatherer together of the universe ; 
as the subduer of ( the universe ; and as the restorer of 
the universe, just as certainly as the texts he refers to, 
describe him - as the head or ruler of the universe ? 
And if panta, panton, and ta panta, do not describe him 
universally such in the one case, how can they do so in 
the other ? He cannot be the universal head or rider of 
the universe, unless he admits him universally so, in all 
the other things just mentioned. If he is only the rec- 
onciler, the subduer, the restorer of a part of the uni- 
verse, then he is only the head and ruler of a part of it. 
There is no way of evading this, at least we can per- 
ceive none; and if there is, we hope Mr. Stuart will 
point it out. His own principals of interpretation must 
make him a Universalist. He must either admit the 
force of these statements, or say, his argument is good 
for nothing against Mr. Channing. 

Mr. Stuart, we think is correct in saying, 4 Christ is 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 101 



the head or ruler of the universe and the texts just 
cited, with others shew for what important purposes God 
placed him over the universe, as head und ruler of it, 
But it is deeply to be lamented, that a man of Mr. Stu- 
art's talents, should spend so much time and labor, shew- 
ing Christ is the head and ruler of the universe, yet says 
so little respecting the glorious ends to be accomplished 
by it. We beg of him to turn his attention to this. The 
subject he was discussing, did not directly lead him to 
say much about it, but the hints which he gives, must al- 
most lead one to think he saw Universalism at the bot- 
tom of them. If he did not, it is strange he did not per- 
ceive, that in defending the doctrine of the trinity, he 
was at the same time destroying the doctrine of endless 
punishment. 

2. But in the above quotation, Mr. Stuart desires us 
to compare Col. i. 17. Eph. i. 19, 23. John iii. 31, and 
1 Cor. xv. 27. We have done so, and in turn, request 
him to compare these very passages with their contexts. 
Having done so, we beg of him to ask himself the fol- 
lowing question. Do these texts more certainly teach 
that Christ is 1 the head or ruler of the universe,' than 
their contexts teach he is the reconciler of it : or that in 
the fulness of times God is to gather together in one 
this universe in Christ ? Having put this question to 
himself, let him then turn to his own letters p. 72, and 
read his own exposition of Col. i. 19, 20, one of the very 
texts he refers to above. I shall only here refresh his 
memory with a small part of it. He says — ' By reunit- 
ing things in heaven, and things on earth, seems evident- 
ly to be meant, bringing into union, under one great head, 
i. e. Christ, by a new and special bond of intercommuni- 
cation, both angels and men. In like manner, the two 
great parties on earth, Jews and Gentiles, ar# united to- 
gether.' If God brings 'into union, under one great 
head, i. e. Christ, by a new and special bond of inter- 
communication, both angels and men ;' and 1 in like man- 
ner, the two great parties on earth, Jews and Gentiles 
are united together,' pray what more needs to be brought 
into union ? Where shall Mr. Stuart find any disunion ? 
9* 



102 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



And if Christ is the bond of this union, what reason has 
he to think it will ever be broken ? To speak of the an- 
gels in heaven, the damned in hell, and all on earth be- 
ing united 6 under one great head, i. e. Christ, by a new 
and special bond of intercommunication,' sounds strange 
enough. We cannot suppose he means any such thing. 
How then can he ever reconcile such statements, with 
his views of endless punishment ? 

4. Further, on pp. 97,98, Professor Stuart thus writes. 
6 2. Divine poiver is ascribed to Christ. Phil. iii. 21. 'Who 
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
unto his glorious body, according to the working where- 
by he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.' 
Compare now with this passage, 1 Cor. xv. 26— 28, 
where the same language is applied to God the Father. 
And if to subdue all things to himself, (apotaxas ta pan- 
to, eauto,) be not characteristic of omnipotence in Phil, 
iii. 21, when applied to Christ ; why should it be when 
applied in Corinthians xv. to the Father?' Let it be ob- 
served on this — 1. If Christ does not save and subdue 
all mankind, according to Mr. Stuart, it is not for want 
of power to do it. No ; for these texts are quoted by 
him to prove that ' Divine power is ascribed to Christ. 7 
That if omnipotence is ascribed to the Father in 1 Cor. 
xv. 26 — 28, he contends it is also ascribed to Christ, in 
Phil. iii. 21. If all are not then finally subdued and 
saved, it must be for want of will and inclination in 
Christ, a thing I hope he will not advocate. But per- 
haps he has embraced the new orthodoxy, that all depends 
on men whether they will be pleased to be subdued and 
saved. I shall be sorry if he has embraced a notion 
which makes the whole success of the travil of the Re- 
deemer's soul, rest on the whim and caprice of fickle sin- 
ful men. What a great change must have taken place 
in orthodoxy ? Now, people shall be willing in the day 
of their own power ; but formerly, they 6 shall be willing 
in the day of the Lord's power.' Psal. ex. 3. 

2. But a very important question here is, about what 
is Christ's poiver or omnipotence said to be exerted, in 
Phil. iiL 21? ' He is able to subdue all things unto .him- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS 



103 



self, apotuxas ta panta eauto? Now, have we not seen 
from Mr. Stuart's own statements, that ta panta, means, 
6 the universe? and that this universe, is to render to 
God and Christ spiritual and divine worship? But we 
are told in this passage, Christ is to 4 change our vile 
body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious 
body.' And this he is to effect, 4 according to the work- 
ing whereby he is able even to subdue all things (ta pan- 
ta, the universe) unto himself.' If Christ then, does not 
effect this change on all, it cannot be from want ofpoiv- 
er to do it, for he is able to subdue the universe unto 
himself. Nor can it be from want of will and inclination 
to do it, for we are assured, he is to subdue the universe 
before he delivers up the kingdom to his father, and the 
last enemy to be destroyed is death. 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. 
And does not this very chapter shew, that the same 
change is to take place in all ? which is from corruption to 
incorruption, from mortality to immortality. Nor is it very 
easy for any man to assign a satisfactory reason, why death 
should come by the first Adam to all, and yet by the sec- 
ond Adam, the resurrection from the dead should not 
come to all ? Or, that we should all bear the image of the 
earthly Adam, and yet we shall not all bear the image of 
the heavenly ? Shall not the judge of all the earth do 
right ? And is not the wisdom from above without par- 
tiality ? 

5. Mr. Stuart says p. 101, after quoting Rom. x. 9-14. 
6 The Lord on whose name they are to call, is plainly 
Christ ; for he is the same in whom they are to believe : 
(v. 11 and 14.) And this Lord, (Christ) on whom they 
are to call, and in whom they are to believe, is kurios 
j) anion, universal Lord, and therefore able to bestow the 
blessings which they need.' Here Mr. Stuart declares, 
1. That Christ 'is kurios pardon, universal Lord,' which 
in other places he explains thus, that he is 'placed over 
the creation,' etc. 

2. On this universal Lordship of Christ, Mr. Stuart 
founds the conclusion, that he is 'able to bestow all 
needed blessings.' We would then respectfully ask 
him — -what benefit it can be to our race, that Christ is 



104 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



universal Lord, and is 1 able to bestow all needed bless- 
ings,' if he is not just as ivilling, as he is able, to bestow 
them ? Is it not rather a curse to that part of them, on 
whom he shall exert his omnipotent power, and exercise 
his universal Lordship, in making them suffer misery 
without relief and without end? Mr. Stuart surely 
could not mean, that Christ's willingness to bestow all 
needed blessings, is less than his ability? Nor can we 
suppose he confines the bestowment of his blessings to 
believers in this world. If he does, he must believe in 
the endless misery of all the heathen world, who never 
heard of the name of Jesus. Besides, he must believe 
in the endless damnation of all who die in infancy, for 
they are physically and mentally incapable of believing 
in his name. 

3. But let us see what the scriptures say of Christ's 
Lordship. In Luke ii. 10, the angel said unto the shep- 
har£s — c Fear not, for behold I bring you good tidings of 
great joy, which shall be to all people.' But why to all 
people, or to Jews and Gentiles ? The reason is given 
thus, verse 11. 'For unto you is born this day, in the 
city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord, 
(kurios). r Here the glad tidings being to all people, or 
to Jews and Gentiles, are predicated on the universal 
Lordship of Christ. Hence Peter told the Jews, Acts 
ii : 36 — ' Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom 
ye have crucified both Lord, (kurios) and Christ.' And 
the same Peter, Acts x : 36, told the Gentiles in the 
house of Cornelius, ' God sent unto the children of 
Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ ; he is Lord of 
all. (esti panton kurios)? Nothing can be more obvious, 
than that the glad tidings of life and immortality to Jews 
and Gentiles, are founded on the universal Lordship of 
Jesus Christ, Nor is his Lordship confined to all Jews 
and Gentiles alive, but is extended also to the dead. 
Hence Paul says Rom. xiv : 9—- For to this end Christ 
both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord, 
(kurieuse) both of the dead and living.' Such is Christ's 
universal Lordship. And that he is to exercise it, until 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



105 



all are subdued, is out of all question. Mr. Stuart tells 
us himself p. 121, 'Christ is called Lord (kurios) because 
of his universal dominion.' And further says p. 124. 
f Acting as such a head, all enemies are put under his 
feet.' See Psalm ex. Compare Matt, xxii : 41-45 and 1 
Cor. xv : 24-28. 

If it is asked, how is Christ Lord of the dead, as well 
as of the living. I answer, because he is to raise all the 
dead in the last day. In the resurection, we are told, 1 
Cor. xv : 42-46, the dead shall be raised incorruptible, 
as well as the living changed. Unless Christ was Lord 
of the dead as well as of the living, his Lordship would 
not only be very limited, but also of short duration. 
Yea, unless there shall be an endless succession of the 
generations of the human race, he would be left at last 
without any subjects on whom he could exercise his uni- 
versal Lordship. The unnumbered millions of the dead, 
far exceed those now alive, and all in their turn must 
die, so that death would have universal and endless 
dominion over them. But 8 to this end, Christ both died, 
and rose, and revived that he might be Lord both of the 
dead and living.' He is the first begotten from the dead, 
who arose to die no more ; death now cannot have do- 
minion over him. He is the first fruits of them who 
sleep, and because he liveth they shall live also. 

When it is said Christ is Lord both of the dead and 
living, it includes our whole race, for all of them come 
under one or other of these two divisions. And his 
reign, or universal dominion, is to continue until every 
knee shall bow to him, of things in heaven, and things 
on earth, and things under the earth, and the last enemy 
death is destroyed. For since by man came death by 
man also comes the resurrection from the dead, and as 
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made 
alive, 1 Cor. xv. His universal Lordship over the dead 
as well as the living, will be manifested in his raising all 
up from death at the last day. He must be Lord of the 
dead who hath the power, to raise them from the dead. 
They were given to him by the Father, and he shall lose 
none of them, as we shall see presently. 



106 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



Since writing the above, Mr. Stuarts Commentary oit 
the epistle to the Romans has fallen into our hands. 
On chap. xiv. 9, he says — ' to be Lord of the dead and 
of the living, is, that he should be supreme ruler over 
the present world and the world of spirits ; for the living 
and the dead make up all the human race.' May I be 
permitted to ask, on what authority Mr. Stuart changes 
the Apostles words, 'the dead'' into ' the ivorld of spirits'? 
Does not he mean by spirits living beings, or what he 
would call immortal soids in a future state ? How then 
can they be dead'? And if the Apostle meant this, he 
could have said this, just as easily as Mr. Stuart for him. 
Where did Mr. Stuart find such language as — ' the world 
of spirits^ Not in the Bible, for it contains no such 
language. We presume he derived it from the Jewish 
Rabbinical writings, or the heathen. See his exegeti- 
cal Essays, where something like this is admitted. 

But Mr. Stuart's explanation, or rather alteration of 
the Apostle's language, destroys all distinction between 
the dead and living mentioned in the passage. Accord- 
ing to it there are no dead, unless Mr. Stuart's spirits 
are dead in his world of spirits. He admits, ' the living 
and the dead make up all the human race,' and if his 
spirits in the world of spirits are alive, all the human 
race are living. But do the scriptures represent all the 
dead to be still alive ? Do they not rather say, Hhe dead 
know not any fhingV That at death their ' thoughts per- 
ish? Were Universalists, to alter the language of the 
Bible to suit their system, in a similar way as Mr. Stuart 
does here, they would be counted infidels. 

6. Again, on pp. 124, 125. Mr. Stuart thus writes. 
i So God is said to have highly exalted him, (Christ), and 
given him a name, above every name,' Phil. ii. 9 — 11. 
In a similar way all power is given him in heaven, and 
on earth ; i. e. he is constituted 4 head over all things to 
his church ;' Math, xxviii. 18. Acting as such a head, 
* all enemies are put under his feet ;' (1 Cor. xv.25 — 27.) 
And this mediatorial dominion, when the work of a me- 
diator is completed, will be resigned, at the final judge- 
ment, (1 Cor. xv. 28.)' He adds, p. 131 ; 'besides, in 1 



CONCLUDING ItEMARKS. 



107 



Cor. xv. 28, it is affirmed, that when the enemies of the 
church shall be all subdued, the 4 Son himself shall be 
subject to the Father, that God may be all in all.' Here 
we have several remarks to make. 1. Mr. Stuart seems 
here to forget, what he said p. 69, noticed above. Here 
he says, Christ 4 is constituted head over all things to his 
church.' But there he told us, God placed him 4 over the 
creation^ And as an explanation added — 4 And hast 
placed him over the works of thy hands, all things hast 
thou put under his feet.' And we have just seen, that 
on p. 10] , he says, Christ is — 4 kurios panton, universal 
Lord. 1 We have also seen in the letters, and also- 
in the remarks above, that this universal Lordship, or 
being placed over the creation, is to bring all into a will- 
ing subjection to God. 

2. But if we examine the texts, which Mr. Stuart here 
refers to, we shall find the writers explanations differ 
from his. Let us look at them. The first is Phil. ii. 
9 — 11, which he partially quotes thus. 4 God is said to 
have highly exalted him, and given him a name, above 
every name.' Mr. Stuart's explanation is — i. e. he is 
constituted 4 head over all things to his church? Let us 
now hear the apostles explanation. After saying God 
hath 4 highly exalted him, and given him a name, above 
every name,' he adds — 4 that at the name of Jesus every 
knee should boiv, of things in heaven and th ings on earth, 
and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should 
confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God 
the father.' This is somewhat a different explanation 
from his. And, have we not seen in the letters, that 
Mr. Stuart explains the language of the apostle just 
quoted, thus : 4 Things in heaven, earth, and under the 
earth is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New 
Testament writers, not for the church but for the uni^ 
verse? And that this explanation is correct, may be 
seen from Exod. xx. 4. But such is his own comment, 
on the language of the apostle in this very passage, 
which he quoted on p. 100 of his letters to Dr. Channing 
to prove, 4 that divine honor and worship are ascribed to 
Christ.' And that he thought his proof correct, is evi- 



108 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



dent, for he added — 'What can be meant, by things in 
heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, 
if spiritual worship be not meant?' And ought he not to 
have also said — ' What can be meant by things on earth, 
and things under the earth, i. e. beings in earth and un- 
der the earth bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual wor- 
ship be not meant?' In fact he says as much as this, for 
he immediately adds — ' What other worship can heaven 
render ? And if the worship of Christ in heaven be spir- 
itual, should not that of others, who ought to be in tem- 
per united with them, be spiritual also ? And when it 
is added, this worship shall be ' to the glory of God the 
father I understand the sentiment to be, that Jesus in 
his mediatorial character is the proper object of universal 
adoration. But as this character, has a peculiar connex- 
ion with and relation to God the Father, so the worship 
paid to Christ the mediator, should redound to the glory 
of the Father as well as of himself.' Mr. Stuart here 
then, is not only at variance with the Apostle's com- 
ment, but he is even at variance with his own comment 
on the Apostles language. 

The second passage which he quotes is Matt, xxviii : 
18, and but partially thus. ' In a similar way all power is 
given him (Christ) in heaven, and on earth.' He gives 
the same explanation here as of the last passage thus, 
'i. e. he is constituted 'head over all things' to his 
church.' But I ask, is this the Saviour's explanation ? 
No. Or, does he say, 'Go ye therefore and teach the 
church. No ; but Go ye therefore and teach all na- 
tions? etc. And I may add, if 'all power is given to 
Christ in heaven and on earth? according to Mr. Stuart's 
own explanation above, all power is given to him over 
the universe. But why give to any being, all power 
over the universe, unless there was a will or inclination 
to employ that power for the good of the whole universe? 
Without this, it would be dangerous to trust so much 
power in any beings hands. But all this power over 
the universe, was given to Christ for the purpose of sub- 
duing it, that all might worship Christ with spiritual and 
divine worship. This Mr. Stuart shews, as seen in the 
preceding letters and remarks. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS* 



109 



Mr. Stuart's third text, is 1 Cor. xv. 25-27, which he 
quotes thus. ' Acting as such a head, .'all enemies are 
put under his feet, (1 Cor. xv. 25-27.) And this mediato- 
rial dominion, when the work of a mediator is completed, 
will be resigned, at the final judgment. (1 Cor. xv; 
28).' What Mr. Stuart means by the phrase [final judg- 
ment,' we presume is, sentencing some to the endless 
joys of heaven, and others to misery without end. But 
where does any sacred writer, use the phrase 'final 
judgment,' or, the thing Mr. Stuart intends by it? In 
this very chapter, is given the fullest account of the 
resurrection of the dead in the Bible. The resurrection 
is one to all, and of the same nature to all, for not a 
hint is dropped, that at this period some are raised from 
the dead, to be forever miserable. No, the change in 
all raised from the dead, is, from mortality to immortality, 
from corruption to incorruption ; and the last enemy 
death is to be destroyed to all alike. But, if Mr. Stu- 
art's eternal death, is still to remain after this period, 
how can death, then be swallowed up in victory ? Say, 
if his final judgement, his eternal death, his endless mis- 
ery, are scripture doctrines, was not 1 Cor. xv. the very 
place in the Bible where they ought to have been intro- 
duced ? 

Who, Mr. Stuart means by the church, he does not 
define ; but we presume from the orthodox use of this 
phrase he restricts it to believers. But he should recol- 
lect, the church, in the Bible sense of this phrase, includes 
all those for whom Christ died ; whom he loved, and 
gave himself for them. See Eph. v : 25-28. And that 
Mr. Stuart believes in universal redemption by Jesus 
Christ, is beyond all question. In his Exegetical Essays 
p. 8, he thus writes : 4 The world by wisdom knew not 
God. Nor did they know that he had made man in his 
own image ; much less that man had been redeemed by 
the death of God's own beloved Son.' I beg Mr. Stuart 
to consider : 1. Does he not in these words mean, that 
God hath redeemed man, the ioorld,the whole of mankind, 
by the death of his beloved Son ? The redemption, 
whatever it may be, is alike to them all, whether it be 
10 



110 



CONCLUDING REMARKS, 



redemption from sin, hell, or any thing else. It is one 
redemption, it is by Jesus Christ, and it is one to all. 

2. The passage just referred to, Eph. v : 25-28, calls 
all those 4 the church? whom Christ loved and gave him- 
self for them: the very persons whom Mr. Stuart says 
God hath redeemed by the blood of his own beloved 
Son. And these included man, the whole of mankind, 
by his own shewing. 

3. Does it not conclusively follow, that if Mr. Stuart's 
system is correct, hell at last must be peopled with the 
church ; persons whom God hath redeemed by the death 
of his own beloved Son? I beg of him, and all our 
orthodox friends, to consider if this can be true. And 
if it is denied, that this conclusion follows, that they 
would be so kind as to show how they avoid it. If the 
Bible speaks of damned sinners in hell, who have been 
redeemed by the death of Christ, it has escaped my ob- 
servation. 

3. But let us inquire, to whom or to what Mr. Stuart 
refers, by ' the enemies of the church? in 1 Cor. 15, which 
he quotes above ? Are they persons, or, are they things? 
It is of some importance to ascertain this. Let it then 
be observed, that throughout the whole chapter, the 
apostle does not mention in any shape wicked men, 
devils, or any other beings as the enemies of the church. 
But he mentions two things as enemies, over which at 
that period victory shall be obtained. He says, verses 
55-57, 4 death where is thy sting? O grave (hades) 
where is thy victory ? The sting of death is sin ; and 
the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be unto God, 
which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus 
Christ.' Sin, death, or the grave, are then the enemies 
of the church. But in the resurrection, they shall all 
be subdued, a complete victory obtained over them. 
Mr. Stuart seems to forget, that those whom- he calls the 
church, are the persons Christ at that period has subdu- 
ed. They were the enemies of God, whom Christ was 
exalted to subdue, and then he has subdued them. Nor 
will the church, which is Christ's body he complete, un- 
til all are subdued. Nor will Christ's work be completed, 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



Hi 



until he has accomplished this. By Mr. Stuart's own 
she wing*, God has placed Christ over the universe, has 
put all things under his feet, to be subdued, or brought 
into subjection by him. And have we not seen, that 
beings in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, mean 
the whole universe, by Mr. Stuart's own confession? 
Moreover, has he not told us, that every knee, of those 
beings in heaven, earth, and under the earth, are to bow 
to Jesus. And can it be denied, that this bowing the 
knee to Jesus means spiritual and divine worship ? Nor 
shall the period called the end come, until Christ ' shall 
have put down all rule, and all authority and power. 
For he must reign, til] he hath put all enemies under his 
feet,' and to conclude this whole subjection, it is added— 
' The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.' 1 Cor. 
xv : 24-27. 

7. Moreover, Mr. Stuart says p. 127. -John xvii : 3, 
{ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom' thou hast sent. 
The true God here seems to me, plainly, not opposed to, 
or contrasted with Christ ; but, as every where else, in 
case this expression is used, opposed to idols. In the 
verse preceding, Christ says, 'Thou hast given me power 
over all flesh, that thou mightest bestow eternal life up- 
on all, whom thou hast given me, i. e. both Gentiles and 
Jews. 5 On this paragraph we have several remarks to 
make. 

1. How many did the Father give to Christ ? How 
many did he give him power over, to bestow eternal 
life upon them? The passage answers — 'Thou hast 
given me power over all flesh, that thou mightest be- 
stow eternal life upon all, whom thou hast given me' ;— 
which Mr. Stuart explains thus: 'i. e. both Gentiles and 
Jews.' Now it is well known, Gentiles and Jews included 
the whole of mankind, the whole human race. The 
word all, occurs twice in the passage, which Mr. Stuart 
puts in capital letters ; and the phrase all flesh occurs 
once, which, (to make his meaning the more conspicuous,) 
he puts the word all in capitals, and the word flesh in 
italic letters. We then seriously ask Mr. Stuart, if 
10* 



112 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



Christ has * power given him over all flesh, that he might 
bestow eternal life upon all given him,' 'i. e. Gentiles 
and Jews, ' where does he find his subjects for 4 misery 
without relief and without end' ? Can it be doubted, 
Mr. Stuart believes, that Gentiles and Jews are given to 
Jesus Christ? If he did not believe this, why all this 
flourish of capitals and italics ? And if he did not, why 
give such an explanation of the word all, and the phrase 
all flesh °J It is very certain, whether he does or not, 
his explanation accords with what Paul says, Rom. hi. 
29, 30. ' Is he the God of the Jews only ? Is he not also 
of the Gentiles ? Yes of the Gentiles also.' 

But how many does the scripture say, were given to 
Christ? The following passages, among many others 
answer thus. ' Ask of me, and I shall give thee the 
heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of 
the earth for thy possession.'* Psalm ii: 8. Again, 
'All things (panta) are delivered unto me of my Father.' 
Matt, xi : 29. Luke x : 22. Again John iii : 35,— 'The 
Father loveth the Son and hath given all things (panta) 
into his hands.' And John xiii. 3. 'Jesus knowing 
that the Father had given all things (panta) into his 
hands.' See in the Letters, and in our remarks above, 
what Mr. Stuart says of panta, panton, and ta panta. 
We shall also see presently, how many were given to 
Christ from another passage which we shall introduce. 

* This surely does not mean, that God would give to Christ the 
territory of the heathen, their hills and vallies, etc. No, it says I 
will give thee the heathen, the people for thine inheritance : and 
the parallellism in the next part of the verse is — 'And the utter- 
most parts of the earth for thy possession,' which includes the 
whole heathen world. The land of Judea was considered the 
centre of the earth, where the Jews were located, and all the 
heathen nations surrounded them. It was never doubted that the 
Jews were God's peculiar people. But, to Jesus was also given 
the heathen for his possession. He is Lord of all; heir of all 
things. Will he permit the devil, or any other being, to rob him 
of a part of his inheritance'? No. But according to old genuine 
orthodoxy, the devil was to have the greatest part of this inher- 
itance. Now, orthodox people admit the devil's share is to be 
small, not more in proportion to Christ's, than those hung in any 
country are to the whole population of it. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



113 



2. But we doubt, whether the phrase 'eternal life'' here, 
or in any other part of the Bible, designates the immor- 
tal life after the resurrection. See my Second inquiry, 
where I have attempted to shew, that this phrase desig- 
nates the life or happiness enjoyed by believers in this 
world, and cannot be enjoyed but by believing. In the 
very passage Mr. Stuart quotes, it is said to consist in 
the knowledge of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. If it 
designates the immortal life after the resurrection, and 
none can enjoy it but such as were believers in this 
world, as ortnodox people affirm, then all who die in in- 
fancy must be forever excluded. They were not be- 
lievers, and from their being infants, the thing was im- 
possible. So must the heathen be excluded, for how can 
they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? Yet 
we have just seen the heathen were given to Christ for 
his inheritance. Indeed, if none are to enjoy future 
immortal life, but such as were believers in this world, 
one in a thousand saved are too many. This old ortho- 
doxy, was too liberal Christianity, to correspond to the 
fact. All orthodox people now, may be termed ' very 
liberal Christians? They of late years, have approxi- 
mated to the borders of Universalism. They must either 
come on to this ground altogether, or retrace their steps 
to ancient Calvinism. They cannot long abide where 
they are, for orthodox people at the South, tell their or- 
thodox brethren at the North, that if they believed 
Christ died for all, they would also believe, all would be 
saved. 

But the following passage demands some notice, as it 
stands closely connected with what we have just quoted 
from Mr. Stuart. It is John vi: 37-41. 'All that the 
Father giveth me shall come tome ; and him thatcometh 
to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down 
from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of 
him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which 
hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one 
which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have 
11 



114 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



everlasting life : And I will raise him up at the last day.' 
I shall not stop to inquire, what our Lord meant by his 
coming down from heaven, as it does not concern our 
present subject. I shall also take it for granted, that 
by the phrase last day, twice used in these verses, the 
period of the resurrection of the dead is designated. 
This I presume will not be disputed, by Mr. Stuart. 

It is very obvious from the context of this passage, 
that our Lord was reasoning with the Jews, concerning 
their unbelief in him as the Messiah. He says to them, 
verse 36 : ' But I said unto you, that ye also have seen 
me and believe not.' They as a nation rejected him, 
notwithstanding the proofs he gave them, that he was 
their long expected Messiah. But was their unbelief 
to defeat the design of his mission ? No ; says the 
apostle, Rom. iii : 3, 4, ' For what if some did not be- 
lieve ? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without 
effect ? God forbid : yea let God be true, but every man 
a liar.', 1. Their unbelief as a nation, could not prevent 
the remnant according to the election of grace, (Rom. 
ii: 5,) coming to him then. No; our Lord says in verse 
39,— 4 All that the Father giveth me (now*) shall come 
to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast 
out.' The election shall obtain this, and the rest are 
blinded. Rom. xi : 7. What our Lord meant by com- 
ing to him, he explains in verse 35, to be believing on 
him ; the same as stated verse 40, 'Seeing the Son, be- 
lieving on him, and enjoying everlasting life.' The un- 
belief of the nation generally, could not prevent the 
election of grace from- coming to him then, or being 
given to him as the first fruits. They would come to 
him, and notwithstanding their former unbelief, he would 
in no wise cast them out. 

2. Our Lord also assured the Jews, that their unbelief 
could not defeat his mission. No, not until their unbe- 

* The sense here I think is, giveth me now. The tense of the 
verb shews this. Our Lord is not speaking here of all the Father 
had given him in the most extensive sense. Of this he speaks 
verse 39, as we shall presently see, and is spoken of in the past 
tense thus — ( That of all which he hath given me I should lose 
nothing.' 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



115 



lief could defeat the will and purposes of God. But 
this it could not do, for Peter told the Jews, Acts vi: 28, 
that their unbelief only accomplished, ' Whatsoever his 
hand and counsel determined before to be done.' And 
our Lord here, in verses 38-40, says to them — 6 For I 
came down from heaven not to do mine own will but the 
will of him that sent me. And this is the Fathers will, 
that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, 
but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is 
the Father's will, that every one which seeth the Son 
and believeth on him may have everlasting life : And I 
will raise him up at the last day.' 

The principal subject in these verses is, the design 
and ultimate end of Christ 's mission. He positively de- 
nies, that he came down from heaven £ to do his own 
will,' and as positively affirms, that he came to do ' the 
will of the Father who sent him.' What then was his 
Father's will ? This question he answers in verses 39, 
40 just quoted. It divides itself into two parts. I. He 
says in verse 39 — ' And this is the Father's will which 
hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.' 
The first question to be considered is — How many had 
the Father given to Christ ? Mr. Stuart answers, as in 
the passage he quotes, all, all flesh, which he explains 
thus, 6 i. e. both Gentiles andJeivsS And in the Letters, 
and remarks above, we have seen, that he says, i lapantd > 
means l the universe*; that ' God has placed him over the 
creation'; 'appointed him heir of all things (ta panta f\ 
and is to 6 reconcile all things (ta panta) to himself by 
Jesus Christ.' Heb. i. 2. Col. i. 19; 20. See also the 
passages a bove, which all agree to Mr. Stuart's state- 
ments, that 'both Gentiles and Jews' were given to 
Christ. 

The next question is, — will Christ lose any of them 
whom the Father gave him ? This he explicitly denies. 
He says, it was his Father's will — 'that of all which he 
hath given me I should lose nothing.' Christ, evidently 
then could not do his Father's will, if he did lose any of 
them. If he lost any of them, he would fail in accom- 



116 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



plishing the mission on which his Father sent him. He 
cannot fail in accomplishing this, for lack of either pow- 
er or inclination, according to Mr. Stuart's own shewing, 
as we have seen above, none are able to pluck them out 
his, or his Father's hand. John x. 28, 29. The tenets 
of old orthodoxy, were not so inconsistent, as to sup- 
pose, that any given to Christ would be lost. No, the 
endless damnation of sinners, was held on the ground, 
that such sinners were never given to Christ, but that 
God passed them by, or decreed their endless misery. 
But now, modern orthodoxy, even Mr. Stuart admits, 
all, all flesh, both Gentiles and Jews, were given to Christ, 
yet he contends all are not to be saved. What is to 
be the end of these modern improvements in orthodoxy ? 

The next question is — what did Christ mean by not 
losing any of those the Father gave him. This he 
answers in the words- — ' But shall raise it up again at 
the last day.' He plainly intimates, that if any of 
those whom the Father gave him, were not raised up 
by him, they would be lost. But he declares, 4 this is 
the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which 
he hath given me I should lose, (apoleso) nothing.' If 
not raised up at the last day they would be lost, or 
'perished,' (apolonto), as Paul declares, 1 Cor. xv. 18. 
Here then our Lord refutes in the same sentence, the 
doctrines of annihilation and endless misery ; for if any 
in the last day are not raised up, or are raised to end- 
less punishment, they must be lost. Here would be 
lost sheep, lost from the fold of God forever; whom 
Christ the great shepherd of the sheep, is never to 
bring back to it." Mr. Stuart must then prove, that 
there were some the Father never gave to Christ, or 
universal salvation is indisputable. But should he at- 
tempt to prove this, he must first retract some of his 
statements. For example, 'all, all flesh, i. e. Geritiles 
and Jews? he admits were given to Christ, and Gen- 
tiles and Jews include the whole human race. He 
has got none, therefore, either to annihilate or make 
forever miserable at the last day, by his own obvious 
statements. I know something of old orthodoxy, but I 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



117 



know nothing in modern orthodoxy, which can scrip- 
turally or rationally account, for all being given to 
Christ, yet some of them must be miserable 'without 
relief and without end.' 

But it will probably be objected — ' Must not Judas 
be lost? For does not our Lord say concerning him, 
John xvii. 12, c Those that thou gavest me I have kept, 
and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition ; that 
the scriptures might be fulfilled. 3 No ; for all must 
see, that if Judas was lost, not raised up at the last 
day, this would plainly contradict what our Lord says, 
' That of all which the Father hath given me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last 
day.' It will then be asked, how is this apparent con- 
tradiction between the two statements to be reconciled ? 
I answer, the context of John xvii. 12, very clearly 
and easily reconciles it. There, our Lord is speaking 
of his apostles. See v. 9, 10, 11, where he prays for 
them ; and adds in verse 12, 6 While I was with them 
in the world, I kept them in thy name : those that thou 
gavest me (as apostles) I have kept, and none of them 
is lost, but the sou of perdition.' Judas was the only 
one lost from the apostleship, for all the other apos- 
tles continued steadfast unto death. He fell from the 
apostleship by his transgression, not that he might fall 
into hell, but that the scriptures might be fulfilled, see 
Psalm cix. It could easily be shown more fully, that 
Judas being lost, referred to his being lost from the 
apostleship, but I deem this here unnecessary. We 
return to the passage in question. 
On this verse, we have one or two remarks more to make. 
1. Nothing is said in it about seeing the Son, believ- 
ing on him, or having everlasting life. Why ? Be- 
cause Christ here speaks of all given to him of his 
Father, in the most extensive and unqualified sense, 
without any regard either to their faith or their unbe- 
lief. All are included whether Jew or Gentile, infant 
or adult, believer or unbeliever. They were given to 
him, and he is to lose none of them, but raise them 
up at the last day. This view of the words, accords 
12 

i 



118 



CONCLUDING REMARKS 



with Mr. Stuart's statements noticed in the preceding' 
pages ; that Christ is placed over the creation ; that he 
is Lord of all ; is to subdue all ; and is Lord of the 
dead and living. And the connexion of the whole 
passage, seems to lead to this view, for if verse 39 
speaks only of believers being given to Christ, verse 
40 speaks also of them, and would look like tautology. 

2. Being raised up by Christ at the last day, is that, 
which all given to him are to enjoy. This is not what 
the scriptures mean by 'everlasting life,' for in the 
40th verse, it is distinguished from everlasting life, 
which is here enjoyed, and only enjoyed by believers. 
'Every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, 
may have everlasting life.' This will appear by a 
brief notice of verse 40. 

6 And this is the will of him that sent me, that ev- 
ery one which seeth the Son and believeth on him, 
may have everlasting life : And I will raise him up at 
the last day.' To suppose here, that the same num- 
ber of persons are meant, as in verse 39, would limit 
the number given to Christ, to such as have seen 
him and believed in him. But surely this is not true, 
for comparatively few ever saw Christ, and a vast 
number of the human race never had the opportunity 
to believe in him. If none except those who saw Christ, 
and shall believe in him, are to be raised by him in 
the last day, the number given to him is small. Be- 
sides, I ask, are none to be raised in the last day by 
Christ, except such as in this world believed in him ? 
If so, then infants, idiots, the heathen world and most 
in Christian lands, must perish forever. But who will 
venture to advocate such a doctrine ? 

But notice what is said in this 40th verse. It is 
said ' Every one which seeth the Son and believeth 
on him may have everlasting life.' Nothing like this 
was said in verse 39. Why? Because it spoke of 
all given to Christ, many of whom never saw him or 
believed in him in this world. This 40th verse, only 
speaks of that portion of those given to Christ, who 
should be favored with seeing him and believing in his 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



119 



name. And this view of the passage, is confirmed 
from the fact, that everlasting life in scripture is con- 
nected with believing ; and does not designate the 
future immortal life but the spiritual or moral life of a 
believer in this world. 

Dr. Woods on this text, in his Letters to Unitarians 
p. 56, says : — 

6 Those who are given to Christ, and those who shall 
come to Christ, are here identified. ' Indeed, the passage 
plainly signifies, that, in every case, a person's being 
given to Christ secures his coming to Christ ; a circum- 
stance which fixes one point ; namely: that those who 
will finally be saved, are given to Christ before, they 
come to him. From v. 39, we have additional proof 
that, when Christ speaks of those who were given him 
of the Father, he includes the whole number that shall 
be saved. 'This is the Father's will, — that of all which 
he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise 
it up at the last day.' The work of Christ, as a Saviour, 
doubtless extends alike to all, who shall be raised to 
eternal life at the last day. But this work of his is here 
represented as relating to those, whom the Father hath 
given him. From the whole it seems evident, that when 
Christ speaks so familiarly, in John xvii. of those who 
were given him, he refers to all who shall be saved.' 

It is evident enough from this paragraph, that Dr. 
Woods must become a Universalist, as soon as he be- 
lieves all were given to Christ. He declares ' The work 
of Christ, as a Saviour, doubtless extends alike to all, 
who shall be raised to eternal life at the last day.' And 
that, 'From v. 39. we have additional proof, that, when 
Christ speaks of those, who were given him of the Fa- 
ther, he includes the whole number that shall be saved.' 
All that prevents him from Universalism is, he does not 
seem to think that all mankind were given to Christ. 
The difficulty in the Dr's. mind, respecting the salvation 
of all, seems to arise from the following things. 

1. He supposes that in the passage — 'those who are 
given to Christ, and those who shall come to Christ, are 
here identified.' But how then can he save a single in- 



120 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



fant who dies in infancy, for certainly they do not come 
to Christ in this, world. All of them must be lost, can- 
not be raised up by Christ in the last day, unless he 
supposes that they come to Christ after death. And if 
he does, the same thing can be supposed of all adults 
who die in unbelief. Even if infants who die in infancy 
were given to Christ, they must perish, for they never 
came to Christ. They are damned, for not performing a 
thing, which was impossible in their infantile state. But 
it is certain from the Dr's. own statements, that infants 
dying in infancy cannot be saved, for he says — 4 the pas- 
sage plainly signifies ; that, in every case, a persons be- 
ing given to Christ secures his coming to Christ ; a cir- 
cumstance which fixes one point ; namely ; that those 
who will finally be saved, are given to Christ before they 
come to him.' Infants then, cannot be saved, for had 
they been given to Christ, this would have secured their 
coming to him. Moreover, I suggest it for the Dr's. 
consideration, if he does not cast all the blame on God, 
of men's not being saved. How could those ever come 
to Christ, or believe on him, who were never given to 
him, seeing that being given to him secures men's salva- 
tion. Indeed, before they can come to him, they must 
have been previously given to him, as he positively as- 
serts. 

2. Another difficulty, or mistake in the Dr's. mind is, 
he thinks eternal life, is that life, all are to enjoy in the 
resurrection state. But this cannot be correct, for is the 
resurrection life enjoyed by those who believe in this 
world ? Surely not ; but can any thing be more obvi- 
ous from scripture, than that all who believe enjoy ever- 
lasting life in this world ? But do believers become im- 
mortal^ on their believing in Christ? No, they enjoy a 
spiritual and moral life, which some even think may be 
lost, and they may after all die in unbelief and be eter- 
nally damned. 

To give Dr. Woods his due, his system is consistent. 
He believes— 4 the work of Christ, as a Saviour, doubt- 
less extends alike to all' who are to be saved ; and these 
only are, all who come to Christ ; and their being given 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



121 



to Christ, secures their coming to him. But many of his 
orthodox brethren, and Professor Stuart among them, 
believe all men are redeemed by Christ, yet all will not 
be saved. But did Christ redeem any not given to him? 
Believe all were given to him, and all such difficulties 
are removed. We submit our views of the above pas- 
sage for a candid consideration, whether it does not 
teach, that all are given to Christ, and all shall be saved 
by him, raised up at the last day. Do not Mr. Stuart's 
statements, noticed in the preceding pages, go to prove 
that my view of this passage is correct? 

I am aware, that Mr. Stuart and others, may make 
some objections to my remarks on the statements made 
in the preceding pages. Such as have been suggested 
to me I shall now briefly notice. 

1. Adults are actual transgressors, but infants are not; 
of course, what is said in the Bible, respecting faith and 
repentance being necessary to salvation, does not apply 
to them ? Dr. Spring would not admit this, for he main- 
tains, that a new-born babe is an actual transgressor; 
that he knows of no other sin, but actual transgression. 
But let this pass as a novelty in orthodoxy. Permit me 
then to ask, since a new-born babe may die, and be sav- 
ed without faith or repentance on what ground is it 
saved ? Or, does it need any salvation ? If it does, 
from what is it saved ? If it does not need any salva- 
tion, how can Christ be its Saviour ; or how can it ever 
sing the song of the redeemed? Now as all admit in- 
fants are saved, yea, contend all those dying in infancy 
are saved without faith or repentance, what is to hinder 
all adults dying in unbelief from being saved on the 
same ground as they are ? It cannot be their actual 
transgressions, in distinction from infants, who have 
none, for in this case the best saints could not be saved. 
Have they no actual transgressions ? They have, as all 
their neighbors know, and as they themselves confess in 
their daily prayers to God. Are they not constantly 
telling God, what vile and sinful creatures they are ? It 
cannot be, for want of being redeemed by the death of 
Christ, for we have seen from Professor Stuart, that he 



122 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



believes all mankind have been redeemed by his death. 
I then press the question, what hinders the salvation of 
any of our race ? The want of being redeemed cannot 
hinder it. Actual transgression does not hinder it in 
believers. Nor does the want of faith and repentance 
in infants. Nor can the want of willingness hinder it,' 
for infants have no will about it. We do not see, why 
God may not save us, as well as create us, without con- 
sulting us. And if he created all things for his own 
pleasure, why not save all for the same reason. Has not 
the potter power over his clay, and if the vessels have 
been marred by sin in this state, cannot he remedy all 
this in the resurrection state? The preceding pages, go 
to shew he has promised to do it. 

2. It may be objected— this doctrine leads to licen- 
tiousness. If all are to be raised to immortal life and 
glory in the resurrection, will not men say— 'Let us sin 
because grace aboundeth ?' We reply with the apostle, 
' God forbid, for how shall we who are dead to sin live 
any longer therein ? T If men turn the grace of God into 
lasciviousness, is his grace to blame ? And must we 
pervert it, lest they should do so ? If we do, we are not 
following the apostles, for they heard the same objec- 
tion urged, yet continued to preach the exceeding riches 
of God's grace! They knew, this grace when received, 
taught men to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, etc'. 
This is proved by facts. Who, pray, live the most moral 
lives ? Is it not those, who know the grace of God in 
truth ? It is God's love and impartial grace, which con- 
strains them to love and to good works. The very thing, 
the objection supposes leads to licentiousness, is that 
which produces true holiness. But 

3. It may be objected, if all are raised immortal in the 
resurrection, and are to be forever happy after it, what 
advantage has the believer in Jesus ? I answer much 
every way, chiefly, because believers in him have peace 
with God, everlasting consolation and good hope through 
grace. See Rom. v. 1, etc. 2 Thess. iL 16. 17. They 
find, that in the keeping of God's commandments there 
is a great reward. That wisdom's ways are ways of 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



123 



pleasantness and all her paths are peace. As no true 
believer, can urge seriously such an objection, we deem 
it unworthy of much notice. If any man thinks, he 
ought to be rewarded with heaven for his faith here, it 
proves his faith has done him little good. It shews, he 
is not serving God for nought. He is making God his 
debtor, and there is no proportion between the work per- 
formed, and the wages he expects. It would be the 
greatest prodigality in God, to comply with his demand. 
It would lead to boasting, but all boasting is excluded, 
and he that glories must glory only in the Lord. 

4. It is often objected — do you not see men die every 
day in their sins, and some of them in the act of com- 
mitting the worst crimes ; how can such persons be fit 
for heaven ? Answer. Who says they are fit for heav- 
en ? Not I, for I never held any such opinion. If I am 
asked, what am I to do with them ? I answer, just what 
you must do with the best saint". Is not he a sinner when 
he dies ? And do not some good people die in the act 
of committing small crimes ? Well, Task in turn, what 
are you to do with them ? If you say their good deeds 
ought to take them to heaven, on your own principles I 
say, their bad deeds ought to send them to hell. Did 
such good people, ever do more than their duty ? No, 
for you allow they are sinners, but small sinners, com- 
pared with some others. How then can God send such 
persons to heaven, who are at least little sinners ? 

But should you say, the saints go to heaven altogether 
on the ground of free grace, I answer very well. But 
remember, it is as sinners they go there, saved by free 
grace ; and if the chief of sinners are saved in this way, 
what pray is to hinder the characters named in your ob- 
jection, to be saved by the same grace? What claim 
has one sinner more than another on this srace ? And, 
it is any thing but humility, for a few small sinners, to 
monopolize all this grace to themselves. There is no 
occasion for this, for God's riches of grace is sufficient 
for all. And being smalt sinners, they will only need a 
little of this grace to save them, leaving a super abun- 
dance for the great sinners, whom you think ought to be 



124 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



sent to hell. Why should your eye be evil because God 
is good? But what is all tbe difference, between little 
sinners and tbe worst sinners ? It is — the one owes 
fifty, and the other five hundred pence. But both are in 
the same predicament, for neither have ought to pay ? 
And both having nothing to pay, God frankly forgives 
them both. See Luke vii. 36 — 49. Cannot God do 
with his own what he pleases ? 

It seems to be a mistake, and the above objection is 
founded on it, that saints are fit for heaven, at their death. 
But does the article of death, purge them from all their 
sin and corruption, yet leaves very wicked sinners in all 
their pollution ? Or, is there a purgatory, into which 
saints go, to fit them for heaven, while very wicked sin- 
ners are sent directly to hell ? If there is, what scrip- 
ture writer teaches such a doctrine? I must greatly 
misunderstand my Bible, if any are fitted for heaven, 
whether they died saints or sinners, until they are raised 
immortal and glorious in the resurrection. If I am mis- 
taken, let it be shewn, how or by what process, an im- 
perfect sinful man called a saint, is fitted for heaven af- 
ter death before the resurrection. Perhaps I may find, 
that this is the same process, by which God prepares the 
most ungodly wretch that ever died at Tyburn. 

5. But I find some also object, saying — All are to be 
raised in the resurrection just as they died. They are 
to be raised, with the same moral characters, feelings, 
and attainments they had at death.' If this be true, and 
if there is a hell in the intermediate state, it is also true, 
no moral improvement need be expected there. But I 
must be permitted to ask, where shall I learn from the 
Bible such opinions ? I can find nothing which gives 
the least countenance to them, and I am not very fond 
of receiving them on mere human authority. But, ad- 
mit for a moment they are true, what follows ? It fol- 
lows, that all saints are raised, with all their sins, igno- 
rance, superstition, and sectarian feelings about them. 
And are you to take them to heaven in this state ? If 
you do, you will have as many sects there as we have 
here, and similar sectarian feelings. This objection 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



125 



then, if it proves any thing, proves too much for the ob- 
jector. 

This view of men's characters in the resurrection, is 
of modern invention, and is predicated on the principle 
of analogy. But if we admit it, we must make the res- 
urrection world, similar to the present. Those who 
contend, that persons there will go on progressing in 
virtue and goodness, forget that some may also retro- 
grade, on their principle of analogy. But what the 
means of improvement are to be there, we have no ex- 
plicit information from them. Oh how long will it be, 
before we all come to learn like little children, our re- 
ligion from the Bible, not seeking to be wise above what 
is written. 

6. The last objection I shall notice is — men are free 
agents, and if they are not willing to use it to be saved, 
they deserve to be miserable forever. On this I have 
only room for two brief remarks. 

1. Is any man such a free agent, that he can exert 
his free agency, so as to defeat the purposes of Jeho- 
vah? If he is, then he is above Jehovah, and it is man's 
free agency which, governs the universe. Say, if it is 
God's purpose to save all mankind, can man's free agen- 
cy so alter his purpose, that only a part can be saved, or 
that the whole may be damned. If not, then man's free 
agency is under God's control. 

2. Is man such a free agent, that by the exertion of 
it, he can even alter the agents by which God designs 
to accomplish his purposes ? For example, could the 
Jews have so exerted their free agency, that they could 
have believed in Christ instead of crucifying him ? Pe- 
ter denies this. Acts iv. 27, 28. If man by all his boast- 
ed free agency, cannot do either of these things, we 
have nothing to fear from it. If men say, they can be- 
lieve if they please, and love God if they please, the 
best thing which can be said to them is — why then do 
you not always please to do this ? 



BOOKS PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 



FOR SALE AT THE FOLLOWING STORES I 

B. B. Mussey's ; Marsh Capen & Lyon ; Baker & Alexander's; 
R. P. & C. Williams; Munroe & Francis; Josiah Loring's, and 
at the Trumpet Office, Boston. Also, by the Author Charles- 
town, and in the principal cities and towns in the union. 

1. His First Inquiry into the sense of the original terms render- 
ed Hell, in the common version. In cloth $1. 

2. His Reply to Sabine's Lectures on the Inquiry. 50. cents.* 

3. His Second Inquiry, into the doctrine of Scripture concern- 
ing the Devil and Satan, and the duration expressed by the terms 
Oulm, Aion, and Aionios, rendered everlasting, etc. Boards 
$1. In sheep $1 25. 

4. Three Essays, on the Intermediate State of the Dead, the 
Resurrection from the Dead, and on the Greek terms rendered 
Judgment, Damned, Damnation, etc. With remarks on Mr. Hud- 
son 's Letters, etc. Boards $1, Bound $1 25. 

5. Letter to Dr. Allen, President of Bowdoin College, in reply 
to his Lecture on Universal Salvation, addressed to the Students 
of the College. 25 cents.* 

6. Letters on the Immortality of the Soul, the Intermediate 
State of the Dead, aud a Future Retribution, in reply to Mr. Charles 
Hudson, etc. Boards $1. Bound, $1 25. 

7. Reply to Professor Stuart's Exegetical Essays. In cloth 
75 cents.* 

Orders for the above works, addressed to the Author, Charles- 
town, will be punctually and faithfully executed. One third dis- 
count will be made for Cash, and twenty per cent, allowed re- 
sponsible persons, to sell on Commission. 

* Very few of the works marked thus, remain on hand for sale. 



Preparing for, and will be put to press in a few weeks — * A 
Letter to the Rev. Bernard Whitman, on the term Gehenna, ren- 
dered Hell in the New Testament; in reply to his Sixth * Friendly 
Letter to a Universalist.' In this Letter, Mr. Whitman covertly 
attacks my First Inquiry, and to it I confine my remarks. Claim- 
in<* the right of self defence, I leave the rest of his book to be 
replied toby the Universalist whom he addresses 3 or until he com- 
plies with conditions which will be stated. 



